Workers' Movement

Members of the Canadian Airline Dispatchers Association voted to reject the tentative agreement their association signed with Air Canada. While details of the vote were not provided, this is another show of strength of Air Canada employees, with three of the unionized groups now having rejected the tentative agreements that were signed with the company.

The bulletin New Horizons in its latest issue saluted the dispatchers for this militant stand in defence of their interests. "It again shows the need for the workers to organize themselves to become active participants in the negotiation process in order to become the decision-makers," New Horizons pointed out.

Defy the "Gag Order"! End Secret Negotiations!
Let's Stand As One to Defend Our Interests!

According to a report of a conference call involving members of the Bargaining Committee, representatives of the Canadian Union of Public Employees (CUPE) National, counsellors, legal advisors and other local union representatives that was posted on the Air Canada Flight Attendant Discussion Board on Facebook, Air Canada and the Union Bargaining Committee have been "placed under a gag order" during the current negotiations.

Nobody told us who imposed this "gag order" but we can only assume that it was the federally appointed "mediator" who is overseeing current talks between the two parties during the "cooling off" period after the end of the conciliation process. There is no explanation as to why this "gag order" was imposed. Nor was there any explanation as to why the order was accepted.

It is obvious that this "gag order" is not some sort of equitable treatment to facilitate discussion between the two parties. It is one more indication of interference by the Harper government and its so-called neutral institutions in the bargaining process. But even more, it is a deliberate attempt to prevent more democratic mechanisms from being implemented and to prevent our collective from taking its rightful place in this process. It prevents meaningful communication from taking place between the bargaining committee and the collective and continues to enforce our marginalization from the process.

It has become increasingly clear from the recent events that members of our collective are becoming more and more determined to find ways to become the decision-makers in the bargaining process. We are making our voices heard in ways and numbers that have not been seen before. The level of the discussion that took place around the tentative agreement and the massive (for our collective) participation in the vote is a first step in taking up, ourselves, the defence of our interests.

While important and very heartening, this first step is only the beginning of a long march from discussing our preoccupations to actually becoming the decision-makers in our defence organization and in the society as a whole. Bulletins like New Horizons, discussions on Facebook, regular or sporadic e-mails from members of the collective and the occasional opportunity to break through legalistic constraints at meetings allow us to express our views on issues that concern us and offer possible solutions to the problems we are facing. These concerns include the immediate issues like wages and working conditions as well as preservation of our pensions to ensure that we can retire with dignity but also include our views on the organization of the airline sector in Canada to ensure that it meets the needs of the Canadian people and our economy.

However, all these discussions remain amongst ourselves and are nothing more than discussions.

We continue to be marginalized from the decision-making process except when we are asked to cast our vote to approve some agreement that we had no part in elaborating. If we don't put an end to this way of doing things, we will never be able to create the conditions that will permit us to be the real decision-makers.

We must establish mechanisms that will allow us to attend and/or follow the negotiations and to participate in them. Participation can be accomplished through discussions amongst ourselves and with our bargaining committee on every point that is raised.

Weekly meetings must be organized where we can discuss what progress is being made as well as any difficulties that may arise. These discussions will allow us to provide direction to the bargaining committee on how it should continue the negotiations on our behalf. If the strength of the Union lies in its membership, then we must become the decision-makers. This will not occur as long as we continue to be marginalized.

Defying the "gag order" by ending secret negotiations will ensure we stand as one to defend our interests.

(September 8, 2011. New Horizons is a publication from and for airline workers, particularly In-Flight Service workers. The publication can be reached at newhorizons@videotron.ca.)

Scab Training -- Denounce State Defence
of Monopoly Right

It is generally believed that in a modern democracy, a government is responsible for defending the interests of the people. The recent actions of the Harper government show that this is clearly not the case at this time.

As long as most people can remember, cabin personnel have had to undertake annual recurrent training within 12 months of their previous re-qualification date. We were told that the Ministry of Transport (MOT) was inflexible on this and that there could be no consideration of any sort. If people were sick or unavoidably absent for some other reason during the period they were to re-qualify they were simply taken off the line without pay and expected to do a lengthier re-entry training when it could be scheduled.

Well, lo and behold, when the Harper government chooses to defend Air Canada's interests, flexibility is the order of the day. Air Canada needs its classrooms to train scabs in order to keep operating in case we go on strike so it has cancelled all regular training across the country. This includes re-entry for those who had hoped to return to work after a maternity leave or long-term illness. And for those who were to do their annual recurrent training, the qualification is suddenly good enough for 13 months.

Meet & Greet for scab trainees at Air Canada Headquarters in Montreal, September 8, 2011. (Glen Malfara)

Besides the obvious lack of concern for people hoping to return to work and begin collecting a pay cheque again, there are other issues that come to mind. Is the MOT going to offer the same flexibility with the issuing of airport restricted area passes in less than the 3 months we need for our renewal process? How else would the scabs be in a position to "replace" us by the end of the "cooling off period". It suggests that the MOT and the Harper government not only are determined to defend monopoly right but they also have no concern for the safety or security of the travelling public.

So, while pretending to be neutral defenders of the Canadian economy, interested only in helping Air Canada and its unions reach acceptable settlements as quickly as possible, the Harper government is trying in every way possible to prevent the workers from defending their interests and doing everything in its power to defend monopoly interests.

First we have the threat of "back to work" legislation that was raised when the CAW went on strike and then used against the postal workers who had been locked out by Canada Post. Now we have the Harper government and its institutions doing everything to facilitate the training of "replacement workers".

We must work to force the government to take up its responsibilities and defend the interests of the people of this country and not the interests of the monopolies like Air Canada, whose only interest is to maximize its profits at the expense of the employees and the travelling public, with no concern for the real needs of the Canadian people or our economy.

Denounce the "Let" for Air Canada to train scabs! Monopoly right -- no! Public right -- yes!

Hearing at Quebec Superior Court Generates
More Questions than Answers

A representative of the Workers' Centre of CPC(M-L) attended the August 29 and 30, 2011 hearings held at the Quebec Superior Court on the GM class action and settlement agreement to establish a Health Care Trust (HCT).

The reason for the hearings was to certify the proceedings as a class action for settlement purposes and to approve the proposed settlement that establishes the HCT. This much was learned because Judge Martin Castonguay began the hearing by saying he had an issue with the proceedings dealing with both certifying the class action and approving the settlement. Did it not mean, he said, that linking the certification of the class action to the agreement was de facto an approval of the agreement? The lawyers for GM and the four named retiree defendants presented jurisprudence on the question and the judge was satisfied.

About 30 people attended the hearing -- mostly lawyers for the four retiree defendants, GM and CAW, plus a financial consultant, the CAW Director of Pensions and Benefits and six retirees from GM Boisbriand, which closed in 2002, who said they are connected with the four retiree defendants. The number attending is in stark contrast with the over 3,000 GM retirees who in the best case scenario are to have their contracted health care benefits slashed by at least 25 per cent if the HCT is approved.

The Workers' Centre representative spoke to the Boisbriand retirees who are linked with the three Quebec retirees and spouse of a retiree who are named in the class action launched last May. This class action is ostensibly to challenge GM's assertion that it has the right "to unilaterally terminate," as GM executives assert, its payment of the retirees' health care benefits. This is similar to the class action in Ontario but apparently the legal terms are different in Quebec and the initiative had at least to appear to come from the retirees themselves rather than the company. In Ontario, GM is directly "suing the retirees as a class" and proposing an HCT settlement; in Quebec, four retirees acting as representatives of a class and led by CAW are "suing GM" and proposing an HCT settlement. In both cases, GM is the beneficiary. Not only is it paying all the lawyers who are arguing in favour of the HCT, but it is the one which seems to want to clear the air on its monopoly right to void or terminate contracts unilaterally.

The retirees in attendance said they were not the ones who launched the class action but participated in the preparatory work. They contend the case was an initiative of CAW Quebec to protect the workers by opposing GM's ability to claim the right "to unilaterally terminate" the health care benefits without an appropriate alternative or settlement. They are told the HCT is an appropriate alternative or settlement. GM's assertion of its right to terminate unilaterally these contracted post-employment payments may or may not be legal in either Quebec or Ontario but in different ways. The retirees are called on to support the HCT settlement because GM is putting money in the trust that the company and others such as creditors will not be able to touch even if the company goes bankrupt. Despite this, it is acknowledged that the amount is inadequate and a large portion has yet to be deposited in the trust and exists only as unsecured promissory notes.

August 29 Hearing

The GM lawyer did not speak first or long but in many ways his words set the tone for the proceeding while the words of others elaborated the GM position. No lawyer or anyone else spoke in opposition to GM reneging on its contracted post-employment obligations or any aspect of public right.

The GM lawyer bluntly began his remarks by asserting that GM has the right to end unilaterally the payment of health benefits of retirees. If the settlement agreement is not approved, he said, the full weight of the class action to approve GM's right to unilaterally terminate its OPEBs would be brought into play. This will have serious consequences for the 3,000 GM retirees in Quebec, he implied, as they could be left with nothing. "End the controversy," he warned, "Approve the settlement."

This is where the case becomes tricky and similar to the one in Ontario. Apparently, the class action the GM lawyer refers to, even though in Quebec it appears to be directed against GM, has the purpose of establishing GM's right "to unilaterally terminate" its contracted obligations with GM retirees. However, in a self-described magnanimous move, GM has agreed to a settlement with its acceptance of an HCT that was demanded by the U.S., Canadian and Ontario governments. So the message is, "End the controversy. Approve the settlement" or the health care benefits you receive under the collective agreements, which both GM executives and workers approved prior to June 8, 2009 will be unilaterally terminated.

The GM lawyer then spoke of the "exceptional circumstances" that GM Canada faced in 2008-09 even though it did not apply for bankruptcy protection. The prospect of going bankrupt and the losses for the retirees and active workers would have been much worse than they have been if GM in the U.S. had collapsed, he said. Apparently, the economic problems in the U.S. are to be passed onto Canadian autoworkers by conceding, among other things such as layoffs and lower wages, that the post-employment health care benefits contracted by Canadian workers with GM cannot and will not be paid in full.

The GM lawyer then went into a capital-centred economic analysis of the part played by labour in the production of value and the distribution of that value, which he said was skewed in favour of labour in Canada compared with any other GM operation in the world. This he declared made production here uncompetitive and a reason for cutting retirees health care benefits and establishing the HCT.

This was rather curious given that no GM production takes place in Quebec and has not since 2002 when the Boisbriand plant was unilaterally closed. Why the GM lawyer was talking in such a manner and why a Quebec judge allowed him to ramble on in his capital-centred way were highly prejudicial against the Quebec working class and a subjective rant in support of GM's monopoly right.

The GM lawyer continued, saying the HCT was a necessary part of GM restructuring to avoid bankruptcy and that the trust has been created as something separate from GM and managed independently from GM.

The implication both in Quebec and in Ontario is that the HCT is a GM concession that shows its good faith even though it has the right under exceptional circumstances "to unilaterally terminate" all its Other-Post Employment Benefits (OPEBs) and even company pensions. In this way, the HCT is presented as positive for the retirees for in its absence GM could allegedly simply eliminate unilaterally the contracted health care benefits without redress.

The lawyer said the trust allowed GM "to rid itself of the liability of paying for retiree health care costs." Without that "liability," GM can work on its "viability" he said.

His comments amount to extortion, as "viability" in his definition depends on categorizing workers' claims as "liabilities" so as to deprive workers of their rights and legal entitlements and leaving them in insecurity. This relates also to pensions. A suggestion is meant to enter the consciousness of retirees that without the "viability" that comes with the termination of their legal entitlements and the establishment of an HCT, GM will not be able to afford to continue funding the "liability" of pension funds. This is meant to panic retirees into assuming that no alternative exists and that viability for monopolies really does mean giving up their rights and legal entitlements, similar in some respects to a shopkeeper giving in to the threats of a gangster extortionist and paying to keep his property "viable and protected" from destruction.

Dealing with the content of the HCT, the GM lawyer said it is true that the level of benefits will be lowered but the lower benefits are guaranteed because GM cannot touch the money in the trust. Anyway, he said, even though GM has signed contracts with workers this does not guarantee that health care benefits, OPEBs and pensions will be paid. The security of contracted pensions and Other Post-Employment Benefits has always been contingent on GM's ability to pay at any given time and on GM secured investors giving their agreement to pay.

Security for the Few at the Cost of the Many

GM workers were not told of this insecurity when they agreed to pensions and OPEBs in their collective agreements, at least that was not the impression and consciousness of the time. GM and other monopolies since WWII have been considered "too big to fail." Workers consider that contracts are guaranteed in law and to tamper with them unilaterally is a betrayal of trust and the legal system. The GM lawyer on the contrary suggests that insecurity is necessary to uphold monopoly right and suppress public right. Without insecurity for workers, secured creditors have no security, which violates monopoly right. The legal system and governments are not allowed to uphold nor are they capable of upholding public right in the face of monopoly right because that would violate the security of secured creditors, and their security is the first priority in commercial law.

This entire situation gives workers pause to think about the necessity for a new direction for the economy and politics of the country to create a situation where public right trumps monopoly right and the needs and rights of the actual producers are secured in law and guaranteed by governments.

Within the GM case, monopoly right trumps public right and the HCT settlement seems a foregone conclusion unless retirees opt out of the settlement en masse and demand their rights in a collective action with analysis. The GM lawyer specifically warned against opting out and cautioned everyone that if the settlement agreement is not approved or if too many retirees opt out then GM will unilaterally stop paying health care benefits for all retirees and everyone will be on their own. Nobody challenged the legality of their assertion. On the issue of opting out, he said that the settlement could become null and void if more than 100 retirees opt out of the HCT. The significance of this is not elaborated. (See note below.)

The judge did not ask him to explain the ramifications of 100 retirees opting out, the procedure involved and why GM would have the say on collapsing the HCT settlement in the event of 100 opting out, as that number or threat is not found in any of the court documents at this time. The silence of the judge on this was odd given that the court was told that written objections to the HCT settlement have already been received from three retirees in Quebec and 69 in Ontario. Even in court, one of the Boisbriand retirees stood up and said he was not comfortable with the idea of the promissory notes not being guaranteed, as they form a substantial part of the financial foundation of the HCT. The judge replied that he takes note of his concern but just as quickly dismissed it saying that it is better to have partial security than a collapsed GM and besides it is up to the markets to decide the future of the benefits. This reply did not diminish the concern of the retiree or the sense of insecurity that surrounds this entire issue.

The judge also asked what had been done with the problem of at least 96 GM Quebec retirees not receiving notice of the information meeting in Boisbriand dealing with the class action and HCT settlement.

This revelation seemed to crystallize the hearing and GM's demand for a ruling to uphold its monopoly right to unilaterally terminate its contracted social obligations. The process to deny the rights of GM retirees rests on active and retired workers not uniting and fighting for the rights and legal entitlements that are theirs by virtue of being human, the producers of the wealth society needs to exist and contracts entered into in good faith. The first line of defence of public right against monopoly right is to be informed and organized and not be overwhelmed and panicked by misinformation and deliberate disinformation.

In this regard, the monopolies and their representatives are not going to inform workers of their rights and assist them in organizing to defend their rights. The information they have provided is geared to getting the HCT accepted. Furthermore, the monopolies want to negate public right and affirm monopoly right. Workers have to provide themselves with the information they require and build forms of resistance to defend their rights.

Note on Opting Out

The court order GM Canada Retirees Class Action available at http://www.gmclhctsettlement.ca/, which is underway in Ontario and Quebec Superior Courts, provides the following message on opting out:

"If the court approves the proposed settlement, all Class Members will be bound by the terms of the proposed settlement, unless they opt out of the Class. If the proposed settlement is approved, there will be a further court-approved notice instructing Class Members how to opt out of the Class if they do not wish to participate in the proposed settlement. Any Class Member who opts out in accordance with that procedure will be excluded from participating in the independently operated and funded Auto Sector Retiree Health Care Trust. As is the case for all Class Members, GM Canada will stop providing Retiree Health Care Benefits to those Class Members who choose to opt out."

Further, opting out is referred to in the legal documents available at http://www.gmclhctsettlement.ca/ but most of the comments are meant to scare people away from opting out. Forms are said to be available for opting out as schedules in the 2009 draft settlement. The document says all questions regarding opting out are to be directed to gmclhctsettlement@crawco.ca.

Opting out of class settlements is a legal term. For example, the Mohawk Class Action was part of the national class action on First Nations' Residential Schools. Opting out dealt with the situation after the settlement of the suit was approved by the court in Ontario. It indicates that once a member of the class opts out, the person gives up rights to anything in the settlement but retains the right to sue the named parties. The notes indicate that the court document approving the settlement decided if less than 5,000 people opted out of the settlement the class action would become final and binding. This implies that if more than 5,000 opted out of the settlement something happens to the settlement itself but this is not stated clearly. Presumably, the terms of the settlement have to be changed or thrown out altogether.

Readers should keep in mind that a substantial difference between the national class action on First Nations' Residential Schools and the GM class action is that in the former case, no prior legal arrangements existed while in the GM case, the retirees have legally binding contracts. An important issue for the workers is whether a party, in this case GM, can just walk away from its contractual arrangements and wait to be sued, or whether it is legally obliged to recognize those contractual arrangements if people opt out of the settlement. Is permitting GM to do this in fact what the current court cases are designed to establish? If a worker opts out, or a large number of workers opt out, would GM not be responsible for continuing the payments because of these contractual arrangements?

Documents available at: http://www.cohenhighley.com/class-actions/the-mohawk-residential-school-class-action/

If you don't want a payment, or you think you can get more money than the settlement provides by suing on your own, then you must take steps to remove yourself. This is called opting out.

No. If you opt out you will not get any settlement payment -- no CEP and no IAP money. You will not be bound by anything that happens in this settlement. Your only option will be to sue the Government or the Churches, on your own. You will only keep your rights to do that if you opt out. Please check with a lawyer before opting out.

No. By staying in the settlement, you give up the right to sue the Government, the Churches, or any Defendant in the class actions, over anything to do with residential schools. You must opt out from this Class to start your own lawsuit. Remember, the opt out deadline is August 20, 2007.

To remove yourself, you must send in an Opt Out Form. You can get one at www.residentialschoolsettlement.ca. You must mail your Opt Out Form postmarked by August 20, 2007 to:

Residential Schools Opt Outs, Suite 3-505, 133 Weber St. North, Waterloo, Ontario, N2J 3G9. Keep a copy of your completed Opt Out Form.

Yes, family members can opt out of the settlement. Family members who opt out will not be bound by anything that happens in this settlement; however the only option they will have is to sue the Government or the Churches, on their own.

The process is quite different if you have a residential schools lawsuit going on in Québec. You must stop that lawsuit before August 20, 2007, or else you will automatically be removed (opted out) from this settlement and you won't get a payment from this settlement. Check with your lawyer right away.

http://www.cohenhighley.com/class-actions/the-mohawk-residential- school-class-action/

The opt out period expired on August 20, 2007. The Government will be providing the final tally of opt outs by former students on Monday, August 27, 2007. Provided there are less than 5,000 former students who opt out nationally the settlement of the class action becomes final and binding.

U.S. Longshore Workers Defend Their Rights
and the Progressive Trend of History

Hundreds of longshoremen and their supporters block a train carrying grain to a loading facility staffed by scab labour in Longview, Washington, September 7, 2011. Police in riot gear charged the group, which included women and children, injuring several in the process, but the people stood their ground. (ILWU)

September 7 and 8, Washington State longshore workers in Seattle, Tacoma, Longview and Vancouver (Wash.) stood up as one in defence of their rights. Over one thousand members of the International Longshore and Warehouse Union (ILWU) closed down the Seattle and Tacoma ports Thursday while a thousand more closed the ports along the Columbia River in Longview and Vancouver and engaged in other actions both Wednesday and Thursday.

Before sunrise in Longview, 500 workers overwhelmed the gates of the new EGT grain terminal and entered the premises demanding their right to a contract and the removal of scab labour. Reports said they expressed their frustration with the refusal of the EGT monopoly to abide by an agreement with the Longview Port that only union longshore workers of the ILWU work the port, and with the company's unwillingness to enter into any discussion with the ILWU. Workers left the premises after several hours to return to their union hall.

Instead of abiding by the Longview Port agreement, EGT, an international cartel owned by the St. Louis-based food monopoly Bunge, Itochu International of Japan and STX Pan Ocean of South Korea, has hired scab mercenaries from Portland to work the new grain terminal at wages, benefits, pensions and working conditions below the Pacific Northwest standard and outside the unity of the ILWU. EGT bragged that it would "save" over a million dollars a year on the 50 workers needed to run the new grain terminal.

If allowed to pass, Pacific Northwest longshore workers say this would break the unity of workers necessary to maintain their collective port agreements and their standard of living established over decades of struggle. Longshore workers emphasize that the ILWU was born in the Northwest in the heroic struggles of 1934 against state and company organized violence and intimidation. The workers' victory marked a new beginning and broke new ground in defence of the rights of all. If the unity of longshore workers is breached for whatever reason, the even more aggressive monopolies and state of today will tear apart the existing living and working standards and destroy their trade union.

Canadian workers should note that the food monopoly Bunge is one of the forces in league with Cargill, other monopolies and the Conservative Party in power in Ottawa that want for their own narrow interests to seize control of the marketing of wheat and barley from the publicly-controlled Canadian Wheat Board.

Meanwhile upstream on the Columbia River, 400 longshore workers and their supporters in Vancouver (Wash.) occupied the railway line to stop the first grain train heading for the Longview Port. They were met with state-organized violence from a large contingent of heavily armed police sent to criminalize the workers, who were defending their rights, and to inflict injuries on them with baton charges, tear gas and pepper-spray and to arrest dozens including ILWU president Bob McEllrath. Reports say that longshore workers stood their ground demanding McEllrath's release and the recognition of their rights. His release came after negotiations during which the demonstrators were told "next time the authorities would bring in the army."

During the last several months of struggle in defence of workers' rights, the state authorities have arrested over 100 longshore workers and issued several court injunctions prohibiting an effective picket at the EGT terminal. Longshore workers in the Pacific Northwest say that they are determined to bring the entire Longview Port, including the new grain terminal within their union family and under a similar collective agreement. The conditions of today, where monopolies act with impunity under the protection of an anti-social aggressive state machine, demand the opening of new ground in defence of workers' rights just as the situation in 1934 called for heroic actions to open new ground to establish the ILWU.

Longshore and other transportation workers along the west coast of North America including thousands in BC add value to the commodities they handle. Those workers have first priority on the added-value they create; governments have second claim, while the claims of owners of capital come last. That is the progressive trend of history and the only way a modern society can operate. Governments and companies must be held to account to abide by that modern definition of the distribution of added-value.

To turn a modern society upside down and have a monopoly deny the rights of the actual producers and progressive trend of history and declare its claim on the added-value workers produce as the first priority and for government authorities to support that obsolete position using the power of the state machine to criminalize workers will not work and can never work.

Airline Dispatchers Reject Tentative Agreement

Defy the "Gag Order"! End Secret Negotiations! Let's Stand As One to Defend Our Interests!

Scab Training -- Denounce State Defence of Monopoly Right

Hearing at Quebec Superior Court Generates More Questions than Answers