Wednesday, March 26, 2008

Buzz CAWing

So Ontario releases it's budget, and everyone is so busy bashing each other, no one notices that CAW talks tough. No concessions, let's strike!

CAW vows no concessions in contract talks

Concessions by the Canadian Auto Workers union won't save the Detroit Three auto makers or restore their market share losses, but the costs of a strike would be high, the union said Tuesday as it gears up a public relations campaign before this summer's critical set of contract negotiations.

The CAW will not agree to the two-tiered wage structure that the United Auto Workers negotiated last year or to concessions, but it is prepared to consider cost-saving alternatives on such items as retiree health benefits, the union said in a presentation to analysts and reporters.

The union will redouble efforts to protect existing investment and attract new projects by maintaining the superior productivity and quality of Canadian plants and continuing its flexibility on work rules.


Let me get this straight, Ontario taxpayers are going to subsidize the auto industry so that CAW can increase it's demands, and strike if that doesn't work. Is Buzz on drugs? Or, is he so sure that the Liberal McGuinty government will continue to throw taxpayers money at his industry that he doesn't care.

The cost of a strike will be high? Sure Buzz, for your workers, especially those who do not have seniority. They are already losing their jobs, and you are still talking tough.

Add to that the fact that Democrats are protectionist, and won't care whether your plants are profitable or not, they are in election mode and will promote jobs for Americans over those for Canadians.

The solution from the McGuinty government? Re-training, for what job? No Walmart I know, even here in Alberta, pays $30/hour for an employee. If automotive employees are laid off, they won't be spending money.

The centrepiece of the government's balanced spending plan is a “skills-to-jobs” scheme that will see $1.5-billion over three years poured into training and apprenticeships. It includes a $355-million second-career strategy that will offer as many as 20,000 unemployed workers job counselling, living expenses and needs-based tuition grants so they can attend college programs.

Thanks Ontario, great idea, you spend the money to train the workers, who won't be able to find a job in Ontario, so the West will benefit. Works for me.

I met a guy from Quebec, who moved to Alberta because the union in Quebec was all about who you knew, not what your skills were, he couldn't get a job in Quebec because of the stranglehold unions have there. He got one instantly in Alberta.

Given the level of Alberta bashing that goes on from the Bloq, and Liberals in general, maybe they should thank us for the $16 Billion a year we send to Ottawa, and that doesn't include gas taxes that ALL provinces reap.

CAW needs to get real, and realize that most of the big honking trucks they produce end up in the West, and soon all their workers will be here too.

5 comments:

Skuleman said...

It would be interesting to know what jobs McGuinty thinks auto workers can be re-trained for. I've been through the exercise many times with "average" individuals trying to retrain as computer programmers/systems engineers. Its a non-starter as most just don't have the native intelligence (no offense but if you didn't have the smarts to make it through high-school you probably don't have the smarts for a job requiring post-secondary education).

I look around Aurora and all the factories here seem to be humming. The difference - they're mostly non-union. In my experience its unions that kill jobs by driving labour costs up to a point where the business is no longer viable, and they're never satisfied until they get there. Then of course they cry the blues.

The other McGuinty mantra is to take money from taxpayers and give it to those companies that are on the way out to keep them on life support a little bit longer. Flaherty's approach basically rewards the companies that are smart enough and stable enough (read profitable) to remain viable and actually grow.

As for the auto sector in particular the non-union players seem to be doing quite nicely. Just take a drive up to Alliston. The big three have two problems. One is the CAW. The other is they are building vehicles people don't want to buy. Personally, I've rented in excess of 300 North American vehicles over the last 10 years on business trips ranging from Ford Focus's to Cadillac Fleetwoods. I haven't had one vehicle I'd even give one thought to buying regardless of price. The Ford diesel I rented in Spain however I'd buy in a heartbeat.

hunter said...

Thanks for the info, it's difficult to get the pulse of Ontario from what the papers print, much better to get it from someone living there.

Unions in general, protect only those with seniority, yet all workers pay dues. Unions were needed at one time, now they seem to be more like an "old boys club".

Diesel? Interesting, but hasn't the price of diesel fuel been increasing? Or is the diesel just a better made product?

Buzz is a perfect example of Peter's Principle, (Dion too, for that matter) he has been elevated beyond his ability.

Platty said...

I saw a spokesman for one of the big three auto makers on a Seattle T.V. station, telling Americans that they had to start buying American made cars.

He did not once suggest that they were a superior product, he wouldn't even say they were comparable to the imports.

He was, however, quite upset that Americans were not buying his product. I can't remember his exact words but it came across as, "Don't worry about the quality of the product, just buy American"


-

Skuleman said...

The diesel I had was about the size of an audi A4, well built, comfortable, peppy (I could comfortably cruise at 135 with power to spare) handled the back mountain roads well under fairly aggressive driving, and got excellent fuel economy (about 8 liters per 100) during aggressive driving mostly in the mountains of southern Spain.

I had an Alfa 159 diesel in Italy last year, same comments but the handling and comfort were even better.

Skuleman said...

The diesel I had was about the size of an audi A4, well built, comfortable, peppy (I could comfortably cruise at 135 with power to spare) handled the back mountain roads well under fairly aggressive driving, and got excellent fuel economy (about 8 liters per 100) during aggressive driving mostly in the mountains of southern Spain.

I had an Alfa 159 diesel in Italy last year, same comments but the handling and comfort were even better.