(The following article is from the April 1-15, 2009, issue of People's Voice, Canada's leading communist newspaper. Articles can be reprinted free if the source is credited. Subscription rates in Canada: $25/year, or $12 low income rate; for U.S. readers - $25 US per year; other overseas readers - $25 US or $35 CDN per year. Send to: People's Voice, c/o PV Business Manager, 133 Herkimer St., Unit 502, Hamilton, ON, L8P 2H3.)

By Sam Hammond

In mid-March, a U.S. company operating in two Ontario plants under the names Aradco and Aramco decided to close their doors and depart. Their going away present to the workers was the theft of $1.5 million in severance and holiday pay, money owed under contract obligation and Canadian law. This was the sixteenth time this had happened to CAW members in the last eighteen months. All of these plants were automotive parts suppliers.

     On four occasions since the beginning of 2008, militant and resourceful members of the CAW have occupied plants and forced partial payments. These have been mostly won from third party manufacturers, the notorious Big Three, so they could get their precision dies and other equipment out of the plants.

     The latest of these debacles was in Windsor. Workers occupied the Aradco plant on March 17 to prevent Chrysler from removing parts and tooling until they received termination and severance pay. Union members from Windsor and nearby communities surrounded the plant to protect the workers inside. Chrysler obtained an injunction against the occupation, and the union went into negotiations, coming out with less than half of the $1.5 million owed. The parts and dies are gone south.

     The CAW and its members in the Auto and Auto Parts sector are definitely under massive duress. In negotiations with the Big Three over the last several years the CAW tried very hard to honour its founding non‑concessionary principles. It tried to be resilient, flirted with union‑management agreements at Magna, and watched its leader, Buzz Hargrove, champion Prime Minister Martin and Premier McGuinty.

     The CAW was double crossed by General Motors in the Oshawa truck plant agreement before the ink was dry, and is now under attack from the Harper Feds who demand give‑backs from the workers before they'll come to the aid of GM, Chrysler and Ford. The workers have to give money to the Big Three so the government can give more of workers' money to the Big Three. Canadian parts manufacturers are also demanding $1 billion in government (taxpayer) handouts. The bankers of course were the first at the trough, busily feathering their nests with our feathers. Does anyone see anything wrong with this picture?

     The militancy of CAW members is an established fact. However the creeping growth of concessionary bargaining is also a fact. Since the concessions allow some contracting out, the auto plants are no longer closed shops, and there are now workers with different rights in those plants. The workers themselves spurned the Magna company union deal, which is slipping into history as a bad experience.

     The outbursts of resolve and militancy really show the way, as antidotes to other tendencies. The demands for what is due under contract and law are minimum demands for what has already been earned; but even minimum, purely defensive demands, require maximum nerve and courage to win. Hats off to those workers who stand in solidarity and fight this fight.

     Sometimes it is necessary in a tight spot to up the ante, and this is surely the case now in manufacturing. The seizure of the parts and dies won Windsor workers a partial payment. The demand could have been for government intervention, for keeping the plant open as a condition of selling in Canada.

     It is time for Canadian workers to stop taking only exit wounds in rearguard actions. The same determination and tactics can be employed on larger goals. Families cannot live on partial severance payments. They need plants and jobs. If the present system of private ownership is impoverishing us, we need to look at public ownership and a manufacturing strategy that feeds on publicly-owned resources, turning out green products that serve the public interest and a fair trade policy. If removal of equipment is allowed, it will never return; it's high time we quit subsidizing the cost of moving it.

     The use of ex parte injunctions in labour disputes has been a prime weapon of the employers since the early 1960s, and labour has not fought hard enough against them. This was the weapon employed by GM in Oshawa and Chrysler in Windsor. More and more, the courts are becoming the prime and first weapon in labour disputes, and the threat of imprisonment and massive fines are the reward for non-compliance. The Aboriginal peoples have faced the same tactics, but have been more stubborn in their resistance.

     In the cross-hairs are the fight for democracy, the fight against regressive laws and for labour law reform. As long as any judge can end an action with a piece of paper, we'll always be left with the crumbs while the corporate bosses walk away with the loaf. When CAW members fight for their rights, their severance and holiday pay, the thieves walk away untouched. Judges issue injunctions with impunity, and governments pump billions into the coffers of the criminal corporate elite.

     We cannot live with this. In manufacturing it is equipment and buildings; in the steel industry, workers may have to prevent the removal of coal and ore. Same fight, different material.

     The CAW is evolving an SOS (Save Our Severance) campaign which should be supported by every worker in the country. Hopefully they will consider future demands. Hopefully every trade unionist will look carefully at the declaration of the Confederation of National Trade Unions, printed in this issue, which calls for actions across Quebec on May 1, International Labour Day. Hopefully every trade unionist will take heart from the massive strikes in France and the large demonstrations in Ireland, Greece, Germany and the Russian Federation. This struggle for what is ours - and what should be ours - is only beginning.