Introduction
The documentary (https://gem.cbc.ca/media/cbc-docs-pov/s04e05?cmp=sch-company%20town) presents the situation in Oshawa, Ontario, where General Motors (GM) decided to close its plant. GM had operated in Oshawa for around a century. On November 16, 2018, GM announced that it was closing the plant, throwing around 2,500 direct workers out of work and affecting thousands more indirectly (through the elimination of demand for parts as well as the multiplier effect the closing would have on the demand for workers in Oshawa locally and Ontario regionally). The factory closed on December 18, 2019 (there is some discrepancy between December 18 and 19 in what I have read and heard).
Jerry Dias’s Union Rhetoric
Jerry Dias was the president of Unifor National when GM announced its decision to close the GM plant in Oshawa, Ontario, Canada.
He claimed the following:
They’re not closing our damned plant without one hell of a fight.
Obviously, there is a problem there: the plant is not the workers’ property but that of GM. The reference to “our” hides this fact.
He also claims the following:
The announcement that GM has just made has betrayed our members, betrayed the community and frankly they’ve created war.
And we will do whatever we can to get GM to reverse their decision. But we will make sure that we put together the most aggressive campaign General Motors has ever seen in their life.
And if they’re going to try to harm our nation, well then we’re going to harm their company.
How has it betrayed the members of Unifor? Mr. Dias does not specify. Vagueness makes it easy to not clarify where one stands over the issue of property rights, for example. Did GM betray the workers because it received help from the Canadian and Ontario governments to the tune of around $11 billion Canadian during the 2007-2008 economic crisis and concessions from the members?
As for war, this is typical union rhetoric. We will see what kind of war tactics Mr. Dias planned.
The idea that it is necessary to pressure GM to reverse its decision still assumes the legitimacy of GM to make decisions; ultimately, it is GM that must make the decision. All workers can do is pressure GM to reverse its decision. Mr. Dias does not criticize the right of GM to ultimately possess the right to make a decision. Nor does he criticize the lack of right of workers to make a decision concerning plant closures. Management rights’ clauses in collective agreements give companies the legal right to close plants–unless there is wording in the contract to the contary. Even when there is no management rights clause in the collective agreement, arbitrators assume that there is an implied right. To criticize GM’s decision to close the plant more effectively would have required criticizing the limitations of collective bargaining. Mr. Dias does not do that.
The idea of harming Canada probably refers to a shift in production by GM to Mexico (the deindustrialization of Canada). This nationalism–of pitting one set of workers in a particular country against another–is hardly in the interests of international solidarity among workers.
At a rally in Oshawa on February 14, 2019, the singer Sting shows up in Oshawa to provide support for the GM workers. He and others were
doing a play about a community in crisis because their industry is closing down. It’s set in the ’80s, in actually my hometown.” We invited Jerry to the play the other night, and he saw it, and he recognized the situation. So we wanted to come and really just offer, you know, a gesture of solidarity.
Sting lead singer then stated, in a typical social-democratic or reformist manner:
I think corporations need to be loyal to the communities that support them because the community supports them. It’s a two-way street, and I think corporations have to be more responsible.
He seemed to be friendly toward Mr. Dias.
He sang the song Every Breath You Take, probably to imply that the workers and union would be watching every step that GM took.
The documentary then shifts to an advertisement about the the expansion of GM in Mexico and refers to the $10.8 billion bailout. This expansion or move to Mexico is called un-Canadian, and it is also called un-Canadian that GM wants to sell to Canadians (since the cars were produced in Mexico, presumably). The announcer then claims that
You [GM] may forgotten our generosity” ]meaning the Canadian taxpayers’ generosity, presumably], but we’ll never forget your greed. ]
If you want to sell here, build here.
Mr. Dias is then shown announcing that Unifor is initiating a boycott of GM vehicles produced in Mexico and shipped to the United States and Canada. He then apparently put this initiative on hold in order to cut a deal for an investment of $170 million to transform the plant from vehicle production to stamping facilities for vehicles produced by GM elsewhere. This will result in 300 jobs in Oshawa being retained.
Mr. Dias then puts a positive spin on this deal by claiming that it is important, for the long-term, to maintain Oshawa as a manufacturing base. He admits that the deal is not perfect, but that he has to
play the cards you’re dealt, and you make the best out of a a bad situation.
Here is a classic union attitude. Mr. Dias accepts the hand that was dealt–to the workers. After all, the situation is that the workers do not control the means of producing cars; rather, the objective means of producing cars take priority over the workers’ needs. Mr. Dias accepts this fact. He considers it a bad situation–but this is the typical situation that workers face every day, whether in a unionized setting or not. So, in essence, Mr. Dias accepts the fact rather than questioning its legitimacy.
Reactions of Rank-and-File Workers, Dias’ Reactions, and Some Leftists’ Reactions
The announcer then asks: What makes us Canadian? [7:11]
A worker, Kevin Craggs, a forklift driver for Ceval Logistics, then criticizes the limited concession of preserving 300 jobs. He indicates that he
never been this angry in all my life.
He now has to move since he cannot afford to live in Oshawa.
The documentary then focuses on the remaining workers who lost their jobs–about 2,200 of the 2,500 Oshawa workers working directly for GM and around 2,000 workers who work in supplying GM. The 2,000 workers in the supply industry work in companies that vary in size; Dias implies that he can negotiate more reasonable severance packages the larger ones but the smaller ones, with marginal profits, are much more difficult to address.
However, finally the union does manage to negotiate improved settlements with all the supplier companies.
Some union members cried on the line as the impact of the shutdown hit home. Jennifer Akkerman, paint shop worker, pointed out that there was a lot of tension at work; she hoped that it would be a good day as she went to work. Everybody is stressed for one reason or another, she said. She was worried about everybody, especially when she is not working since she does not know that they are fine.
The documentary accuses Dias of abandoning the supply workers.
Jerry Dias [28:37] asks his father what the neighbours are saying about GM. His father replies that most of the time you hear people looking for work and finding minimum-wage jobs after working for $30 an hour now receiving $14 an hour. They try to look for two jobs so they can pay the rent. His son replies that he knows that it is a mess. Jerry then asks what the people in the plant are saying; he assumes that they are nervous. One of Dias’ relatives responds that they are beyond nervous–especially in relation to workers who have children.
Dias then talks about his father being president of the union at DeHavilland Aircraft, where they had a seven- or eight-month long strike. His father, a union man, is proud of Jerry. Jerry then asks his niece, an assembly-line worker at GM, what she will do. She replies that she will either return to school in the trades, or find a full-time job that pays well. She points out that she cannot even plan for her future.
Dias then points out that he did not make the decision; it was GM that made the decision. He claimed that they fought and fought to change GM’s decision. He claims that the plant at least is not closing down and that there is still a footprint of the union left in the plant. He feels that he has let people down, but his father says that he should not feel that way.
The documentary then shifts to Jenny Ackermann?, who states that she has been applying for jobs so that she can know what is available and so that she can gain experience with interviews. She received a call from Bombardier, and they offered a job. She states that she can accept the contract, and they she will accept it and move on from GM and not worry. She indicates that she is sad to leave and that she does not hate the plant. She is proud of going into work, and she loves working for GM–until December 19.
The documentary then shifts to Rebecca Keetch, a Green Jobs Oshawa organizer, as she addresses a Green Jobs Oshawa meeting. She claims that there is a lot of support among workers. She also claims that this is not just about GM workers; this is a community issue, which includes the supplier plants, the families and the community members. They will be impacted by the loss of 5,000 jobs in this community; this gives them a strong basis for support.
Sam Gindin then claims that the system has failed them and that people are angry and frustrated–and thus there is potential for change. What is lacking is the ability to turn that potential into a commitment to do things.
Russ Christianson, a social enterprise consultant, argues that without the support of Jerry Dias, it will be difficult to gain the support ot the federal government. We need to discuss strategy around that.
Gindin then argues that if the union is saying that it is not worth making a fight, that really affects workers. And even if the union were on side, they could still not have changed the politics. And maybe this is not the day to say to workers [that it is necessary to fight?] because they are wrapped up in what is happening to them. It is necessary to think about transforming your union as well as politics.
At what looks like a meeting of the exeuctive of Unifor National at The Sheraton Centre in Toronto, Natalie Clancy, Unifor Communications Director, asks how they are to handle December 19. She suggests that Dias write on his blog and that at least one spokesperson should be available.
Dias responsds that December 19 is everything that they have fought to avoid and that they are going to be very agressive towards GM because of the betrayal of the community. They are not going to get away from the fact that they closed “our” plant when they signed an agreement that they would not. So he admits that Unifor has a credibility problem with its own members.
Kevin Craggs, a forklift driver for CEVA Logistics, claims that GM has always been greedy; the workers never got health and safety rules and other rights because GM wanted to give them to the workers. The workers had to fight for everything they got. What he does find surprising is the way the workers were treated by the union. Craggs is a unionist through and through–but he bitterly considers that the union could have done much more.
Shifting to the final meeting of the auto sector (unions reps? it is unclear, but the number present indicates a representative assembly and not an assembly of rank-and-file workers), Dias reiterates that they are not going to be more agressive and adds that they will also be more abrasive in order to maintain the respect of Unifor’s members.
Colin James then states that this is a difficult time, but that he appreciates being elected president of the local for 27 years and that he thanked everybody for their support of him.
We then move to the Rebecca Keetch’s last shift on the line. It was a grim day for her and her fellow workers, but she indicated that everybody at the plant tried to make others feel okay–they were like family and support each other; it made the day bearable. She indicated that she was very angry–and then she notices that security is coming again, so she has to leave.
The security guard comes up to the producer of the documentary and asks what he is doing there. The security guard states that anyone has to have permission to film on GM’s property. The producer, he says, has no permission. The producer replies that this is a parking lot. The security guard responds that this is GM’s property; this is private property.
December 18 is D-Day–the closing day for the assembly line. Green Jobs Oshawas holds a protest outside the plant. None of the union leadership is present. One protester dressed in a Santa Claus suit points out that GM received a $10.8 billion bailout–and still abandonded Oshawa.
Tony Leah, a Green Jobs Oshawa organizer, then speaks to the protestors, pointing out that this is the last day of production of vehicles at this plant after being in Oshawa for 111 years. Leah reiterates what the Santa Claus protestor stated–GM received a $11 billion bailout, and GM demanded concessions from workers and retirees–which they obtained. And yet they still are closing the plant. It indicates that the protestors are there today to pressure the government to act to retain jobs in the Oshawa community in order to assemble electrical vehicles in the plant that GM is abandoning.
The next scene shows the workers at first at the Fox and Goose, a pub in Oshawa. Craggs expresses his anger while Keetch expresses her relief at finishing the day on the line.
Outside, perhaps near the factory, Ken Pearn, an assembly worker for LEAR, wishes everyone the best–even those with whom he did not get along all that well–and he stated that all of them would do the same.
Jennifer indicates that the last day has finally arrived–waiting for it and dreading it at the same time. A lot of hugs that day and best wishes. A few tears. She indicates that the workers who were affectd by GM’s decision will never forgive GM. Whenever anyone mentions GM, there will always be that pit in the stomach and the grudge that will never go away.
Some Political Conclusions
Dias’ bark, like that of so many union reps, was much worse than his bite. Bringing in Sting apparently to show workers that he and others will engage in a fight was mere grandstanding, functioning to shift the workers’ gaze from Dias’ own lack of real opposition to GM’s decision to close the plant–despite his claim that “They’re not closing our damned plant without one hell of a fight.” There was no real fight. It was a TKO for GM. Dias’ was a union negotiator–not an organizer of the rank-and-file for the purposes of developing the solidarity and power of workers.
The documentary did at least show the disappointment of some of the workers towards the union; however, there was no real exploration of the limitations of unions in general and collective bargaining (and collective agreements) in particular.
It is evident that there was a lack of real organization by workers; there was little resistance to GM’s decision apart from Rebecca Keetch’s and Tony Leah’s efforts. There was little or no exploration of why GM could–legally and legitimately from the point of view of the kind of society in which we live (capitalism)–make such a decision.
Kevin Craggs’ reaction of anger toward the union reflects a typical rank-and-file view–that modern unions can somehow oppose the class power of employers without further ado. They overestimate the organizational power of unions, which have been integrated into the class power of employers in various ways–while undoubtedly also opposing the particular power of employers. Given that modern union reps, for the most part, not only engage in collective bargaining but believe in its efficacy (including Jane McAlevey, despite her greater emphasis on the need to actually organize the workers and make the collective-bargaining process more open), Jerry Dias’ rhetoric of engaging in a battle against GM but in fact doing little to change or challenge that decision should not really come as a surprise. That Craggs was angry is understandable; however, it is also points to a vast overestimation of what unions do these days.
Since there was no real exploration of the nature of the problem, there was a corresponding lack of exploration of what could be done about GM’s decision (a solution to the problem)–and what would be required to actually oppose the power of GM to make such a decision; to have effectively opposed GM’s legal power to close the factory would have involved the solidarity and support of more than the immediate workers affected by the closing. Given the nature of Unifor, with its idealization of collective bargaining (see Fair Contracts or Collective Agreements: The Ideological Rhetoric of Canadian Unions, Part Three: Unifor (Largest Private Union in Canada)), this limitation is hardly surprising. Unifor–a union more atuned to engaging in collective bargaining than in actually organizing workers into a unit of power (a militant union at a minimum), was hardly prepared to engage in a real battle with GM.
Comments by the left provide little real exploration of the problem. Sam Gindin, former research director for the Canadian Auto Workers (now Unifor), vaguely points out that the system failed the workers. Gindin fails to provide a more concrete analysis of, on the one hand, the system of collective bargaining and how it necessarily failed the workers because such a system acknolwedges the class power of employers to make major investment decisions (including where and when to close plants and offices) and, on the other hand, the capitalist system as a whole, with its necessary use of workers only so long as they produce a profit (surplus value) (see in general The Money Circuit of Capital and in particular The Rate of Exploitation of General Motors Workers).
His claim that even if the union were on side, the politics of the situation would have not changed. This is unclear. If he meant by that statement that even with the union supporting the workers, the federal and provinciail governments would not have intervened, he was probably right. However, there is another possibility–that would also have led to defeat unless other workers got involved, but would have challenged both the particular economic power of GM but also its class power (because it would challenge the right of GM to close the plant) would have been the seizure of the plant by the Oshawa GM workers themselves. Unless other workers in other industries supported such a move, of course, the GM workers would have been crushed by the police (and, if necessary, the army).
Given the lack of extensive real worker resistance to the announcement of the closing of the plant, such a tactic would probably fail; that would have been determined by those more militant workers, such as Rebecca Keetch and Tony Leah, and not by Mr. Gindin, who seems to advocate conservative radical policies or radical conservative policies (see Once Again on the General Strike that Almost Was in Ontario, Canada, Part Two: Sam Gindin’s Analysis).
Are there other political conclusions to be drawn from this situation?
The Abolitionary 