|
January 14, 2012 - No. 2 Security Perimeter Negotiations Action Plan Outlines Creation of
|
On December 7 Canadian
Prime Minister Stephen Harper and
U.S. President Barack Obama released the Perimeter Security and
Economic Competitiveness Action Plan. Harper said the Action Plan does
not affect Canadian sovereignty. It is not a treaty; it will not give
rise to new rights or laws domestically; nor is it intended to come
under the jurisdiction of international law or require new funding. Seven-kilometre long CP Rail corridor in Windsor,Ontario, monitored by U.S. Homeland Security monitored, highlighted in blue. (Click to enlarge) |
"We will negotiate, by December 2012, a pre-clearance agreement in the land, rail and marine modes to provide the legal framework and reciprocal authorities necessary for the Canada Border Services Agency and U.S. Customs and Border Protection to effectively carry out their security, facilitation and inspection processes in the other country. Concurrently, and as part of those negotiations, the authorities of inspecting officers described in the Canada-U.S. Air Transport Pre-clearance Agreement will be reviewed and amended, on a reciprocal basis, to be comparable to those exercised at airports by officers of the host country.
"The Canada Border Services Agency will conduct full pre-clearance of goods and travellers at Massena, N.Y. Negotiations to this end will be completed by December 2012.
"U.S. Customs and Border Protection will implement, by September 2012, a truck cargo facilitation pilot project in at least one location in Canada to be mutually determined. Based on a positive evaluation of the pilot or pilots, we would consider an expansion to additional sites in both countries.
"The Canadian Food Inspection Agency and the U.S. Food Safety and Inspection Service will initiate a one-year pilot, by June 2012, to provide for advance review and clearance of official certification and alternative approaches to import-inspection activities for fresh meat. The pilot results will be evaluated by September 2013 to inform the future of such work.
"U.S. Customs and Border Protection will conduct full pre-clearance of travellers and accompanying goods at Vancouver, B.C., for passenger rail and cruise ship traffic destined to the United States. Negotiations to this end will be completed by the end of 2012.
"We will identify and develop solutions to operational impediments to the effectiveness of U.S. Customs and Border Protection's pre-clearance operations at Canadian airports by June 2012 (e.g., placement of Canadian Air Transport Security Authority screening activities and U.S. Customs and Border Protection service levels). Implementation of the agreed solutions will commence in December 2012.
"We will establish a working group led by the U.S. Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service / U.S. Customs and Border Protection and the Canadian Food Inspection Agency / the Canada Border Services Agency to conduct a wood packaging material feasibility study jointly funded by Canada and the United States. The working group will identify and address any policy, program or operational changes required to move inspections for wood packaging material away from the Canada-U.S. border to the perimeter. This study will be completed by December 2012."
Going further in establishing one customs system the Plan states the intention to
"Provide a single window through which importers can electronically submit all information to comply with customs and other participating government agency regulations."
Integration
of
Security
Agencies
and
Civilian
Authorities Under
Unified Supra-National Command
Canadian and U.S. agencies are already integrated to a certain extent. The Plan outlines the next steps, such as in the case of the Canada-U.S. Shiprider program. The RCMP webpage states that Shiprider "removes the international maritime boundary as a barrier to law enforcement by enabling seamless continuity of enforcement and security operations across the border." The Action Plan calls for:
"Canada and the United States [to] develop integrated cross-border law enforcement operations, including deploying regularized Shiprider teams." Canada-U.S. Shiprider involves Coast Guard and other vessels jointly crewed by Canadian and U.S. law enforcement officers who are authorized to enforce the law on both sides of the international boundary line. Through this mechanism U.S. law enforcement officers are able to enter and exit Canada and even enforce Canadian laws. This arrangement was put in place by the 2009 Canada-U.S. Framework Agreement on Integrated Cross-Border Maritime Law Enforcement Operations signed by former Public Safety Minister Peter Van Loan and U.S. Secretary of Homeland Security Janet Napolitano.
In addition, two "Next-Generation" pilot projects will be implemented to integrate security forces to carry out "intelligence and criminal investigations." According to the plan, this model draws approaches introduced by Shiprider. The Plan states that "Canada will pursue the ratification of the Shiprider Framework Agreement by winter 2011-12 to enable deployment of regularized Shiprider operations, with at least two Shiprider teams to be deployed by summer 2012 and an additional two teams to be deployed in 2015-16." In terms of the timeframe for the "Next-Generation" pilot projects "The RCMP, Public Safety Canada, the Department of Justice Canada, the U.S. Department of Justice and the U.S. Department of Homeland Security will complete the scope of operations and program architecture for the Next-Generation pilot projects by spring or summer 2012, and two pilots will be deployed simultaneously by summer 2012."
In order to facilitate the creation of one security force, the Plan calls for a binational interoperable radio system between Canadian and U.S. border enforcement personnel "to permit law enforcement agencies to coordinate effective binational investigations and timely responses to border incidents, while improving both officer and public safety."
The Plan also focuses on putting Canadian civilian emergency response agencies under U.S. command in the name of "joint operation." For example, the Plan commits to establish two new working groups to jointly improve our ability to prepare for and respond to binational disasters. It is claimed that the first working group will focus on preventing, mitigating, preparing for, responding to and recovering from chemical, biological, radioactive, and nuclear events (CBRNE). It will:
"Establish joint training opportunities and share lessons learned to enhance preparedness for, and response to, CBRNE events in both countries;
"Establish bilateral information-exchange opportunities to share advancements in policies, plans, science and technology, and lessons learned;
"Establish a strategy that can enhance bilateral interoperability for conducting CBRNE response; and
"Develop a mutual-assistance CBRNE concept of operations."
Upgrading and Securing Infrastructure
Border points put forward as priorities in the Action Plan. (Click to enlarge)
The Plan names specific border points that will be upgraded to speed up border crossing and increase security:
"We commit to make significant investments in physical infrastructure at key crossings to relieve congestion and speed the movement of traffic across the border. Examples of the significant infrastructure upgrades may include customs plaza replacement and redevelopment, additional primary inspection lanes and booths, expanded or new secondary inspection facilities, and expanded or new connecting roads, highway interchanges and bridges. As initial respective priorities, Canada will put forward Emerson, Man.; Lacolle, Que.; Lansdowne, Ont.; North Portal, Sask.; and Peace Bridge, Ont., and the United States will put forward for approval Alexandria Bay, N.Y.; Blue Water Bridge, Mich.; Lewiston Bridge, N.Y.; and Peace Bridge, N.Y., for such investments."
Working to place border point and Canadian border officials under what is called joint command, which amounts to U.S. Command, the Plan outlines the intention to "enhance binational port operations committees." It states: "Building on the 20 land border binational port operations committees established in 2011, we commit to establish additional committees at the eight international airports in Canada that provide U.S. pre-clearance. Both the existing and new binational port operations committees will play an important role in improving how we manage travel and trade flows and expedite the processing of travellers and goods. They will involve the Canada Border Services Agency, U.S. Customs and Border Protection and other law enforcement and transportation partners."
Dictatorship of Monopoly Right at ArcelorMittal Dofasco Hamilton
Working Class Must Have Organized Say and Control Over
Terms of Employment and Working Conditions
TML is posting below Part Three and Part Four of "Working Class Must Have Organized Say and Control over Terms of Employment and Working Conditions" by K.C. Adams. Part One was published in TML Daily, December 16, 2011 - No. 131, Part Two in TML Daily, December 22, 2011 - No. 134.
Part Three: Defining Work Expectations
October 25, ArcelorMittal
Dofasco Hamilton
President and
CEO Juergen Schachler issued a decree to all steelworkers that
"Effective April 1, 2012, all Maintenance and Operations Manufacturing
employees currently working on a 4 x 10 hour day schedule
will move to a 5 x 8.5 hour day schedule." Workers will spend 42 and a
half hours a week at work at the same total weekly pay as before on the
40 hours per week schedule. Schachler explains his absolute authority
or monopoly right to order such a change writing, "Employers are
responsible for defining work
expectations, including hours of work." His assertion is a complete
fabrication. If employers were responsible for defining work
expectations then workers including children would still be working 15
hours a day, 7 days a week without breaks for refreshments. The working
class movement to shorten the working
day and week and exercise some control over "work expectations" marks
the beginning of workers settling accounts with the capital-centred
conscience. The Workers' Opposition has a primary responsibility to
define work expectations according to its own needs and social
consciousness and not accept the dictate
of owners of capital and their executives. Schachler writes that the
2.5 hours of extra time at work without pay results from an
"established Company practice" not to include a half-hour lunch break
as part of the working day. Why then would any break from working while
at work be considered part of work time?
The anti-worker consciousness of owners of capital leads to workers
being fined for bathroom breaks and for being sick and injured. The
Workers' Opposition has fought and continues to fight for the
recognition of all time spent at work or in relation to work as
work-time including coffee breaks, time for eating,
educational sessions, sick and injury leave etc. This recognition of
the rights of workers has expanded to include such issues as the
special rights of women workers to maternity leave. This struggle has
led to the concept of average intensity of work where individual
characteristics of physical and intellectual ability
are averaged out so that no individual worker can be singled out for
exceptional punishment without cause. To regress to a situation where
"employers are responsible for defining work expectations" is to
introduce great instability and disequilibrium into the workplace and
trample on the rights of workers. The modern
socialized workplace cannot function without equilibrium based on the
recognition of the rights of the working class. Workers at Dofasco face
the necessity and social responsibility to organize collectively with
fellow steelworkers in Hamilton to defend their right to define their
work expectations in opposition to
monopoly right.
Part Four: Schachler's Unpaid Half Hour
October 25, ArcelorMittal
Dofasco Hamilton President and
CEO Juergen Schachler issued a decree to all steelworkers that includes
a lengthening of the work-week to 42.5 hours at the same pay as the
previous work-week of 40 hours. Schachler explains the attack on
workers in the following question and answer.
"Question. Why is the workday 8.5 hours and I'm only being paid for 8?
"Answer. As per established Company practice for employees working a single shift (day shift) 5 day work pattern, the half-hour eating period is unpaid."
Schachler's answer explains nothing but does expose his master/slave view of the workplace and capital-centred conception of the modern socialized economy.
His "established Company practice for employees" is a refusal to recognize the rights of steelworkers. This refusal and dictate of an "established Company practice" cannot be the arrangement between employees and employer within the modern socialized workplace.
Workers dismiss the master/slave relation as an abuse of their rights as the actual producers of steel, other value and services. Workers have the right to challenge and change any "company practice" whether Schachler considers it "established" or not, and they have the right to challenge and dismiss any unilateral decree issued by executive management. Equilibrium of mutual benefit for workers and owners of capital can be established but it must be based on the recognition of the rights of the working class not on Schachler's master/slave outlook.
Schachler deliberately mixes up the claim of workers on the wealth they create with other issues involving terms of employment such as the length of the working day and week, the organization of shifts including supplemental claims for overtime, weekend and night work, and periods of rest and nourishment. He even goes so far as to define a break for nourishment as an "unpaid period" during the working day.
Schachler can spout this anti-worker nonsense and unilaterally change the terms of employment with impunity for two basic reasons:
First, Dofasco steelworkers have not organized themselves into a defence collective in unity with other workers in Hamilton and across the country that can fight for their rights using their strength of numbers and crucial position as producers of all value.
Secondly, workers in Canada generally do not have any control over the prices of production of what they produce, control over investments in their workplaces and elsewhere nor the establishment of harmony between supply and demand. In summary, the actual producers at this time have no control over their socialized economy and its direction.
The reality at Dofasco means the first reason that Schachler can act against the interests of workers with impunity, their lack of an organized defence collective, is a pressing problem workers must resolve using their own thinking and determination in unity with other Hamilton steelworkers. Secondly for workers, their lack of control generally over the socialized economy, workplaces and direction of the economy means that their claim on what they produce or services they provide has to be in the form of a definite amount of money to be paid at specified periods whether the commodities they produce or services they provide are sold or not. The contradiction between their claim on what they produce and the economic conditions in which they work that include production, distribution and consumption has to be on workers' minds and an issue they must take up for resolution.
Any agreement between workers and employers on a claim on what workers produce is distinct from other issues such as the length of the working day and week, periods for rest and nourishment during the working day, pensions, sick pay and other conditions of work. The claim and working conditions are matters negotiated for mutual benefit between representatives of the defence collective of workers and executive management. The claim usually is in the form of an amount per hour, day, week or month because workers' lack of control dictates such an obsolete form. The form of the claim, as wages, clouds or confuses the content. The content is that workers transforming raw or semi-finished material into a new product add value to the material they transform. The added-value is the only new value on which any person or social force can stake a claim. Workers are not paid for hours of work but rather they stake a claim on what they produce. The amount workers claim from what they produce must be hashed out and negotiated among the three main claimants of that produced value: the organized collective of workers as represented by their chosen negotiating committee, society as represented by governments, and owners of capital as represented by executive management.
In the specific conditions of Dofasco Hamilton, steelworkers have not as yet organized themselves into a defence collective and united with other steelworkers in the city. This is the main reason Schachler can issue his unilateral dictate with impunity. The lack of organization is a problem that Dofasco and other Hamilton steelworkers must take up and resolve.
In the general conditions of
Canada, workers have no
control over their workplaces and socialized economy. Canadian workers
have not as yet organized themselves into a broad Workers' Opposition
and mass Communist Party that can effectively defend workers' rights
and the rights of all with unity and determination
and exercise control over their workplaces and give a new pro-social
direction to the economic and political affairs of the country. This
absence of organization and resistance and lack of control over their
workplaces, lives, economy and political affairs is the main reason the
Harper dictatorship and other members
of the ruling political class and executives representatives of
monopolies such as Schachler can act with impunity against the rights
and interests of the people. This lack of organization and resistance
both at the workplace and generally in society is a problem that
Canadian workers must take up and resolve.
Schachler's Capital-Centred Outlook
Schachler says the "the half-hour eating period is unpaid" during the shift or working day. This means that in his view the other 8 hours of the working day are paid. This is an outdated capital-centred conception of the relation of the working class to its claim on the value it creates. Workers create all new value and have a legitimate first claim to the value they produce and the right to determine their working conditions.
Schachler's outlook considers workers as machines and not living organisms that require nourishment and rest. The working day is an integral whole combining work, education, rest and periods for nourishment.
Owners of social property, which workers have previously produced such as Dofasco Hamilton, have an outlook that distorts the reality of the payment of workers. They say they pay workers for the hours they work because that is the way they have organized how the working class receives its claim on what it produce, mostly in the form of hourly wages. To suggest as Schachler does that he pays for hours of work and not periods of rest is the same thing as saying he is paying for work. But how could that be? The value of work is determined by the average time workers require to produce a commodity of similar quality. If Schachler paid steelworkers for their work or the value of what they produce, which is the same thing, it would leave nothing for owners of capital as equity profit and owners of debt as interest not to speak of corporate taxes. The law of value calculates the value of commodities as the total average work-time required to produce them.
Schachler says he pays workers for their work-time and insists on this by paying only for those hours they are working and refusing to pay for the half-hour lunch period. If he were really paying for work or work-time he would have to turn over all newly produced value to Dofasco steelworkers, which is the source of claims for profit, interest and taxes. Obviously, he does not pay steelworkers for their working time or their work but for their capacity to work, which in reality amounts to a claim by workers on a portion of the added-value they produce.
Schachler pursues his nonsense and insists he pays workers for their work-time, which according to him does not include the half-hour nourishment break even though this is an integral part of the working day. Eating and resting, contrary to the ravings and narrowness of Schachler form part of workers' capacity to work. Workers bring to the workplace their capacity to work, whose formation goes well beyond the factory walls. The capacity to work includes the necessity for nourishment and rest and much more. Beyond this the capacity to work includes reproduction of workers and their upbringing and education and maintenance in old age, which means that the capacity to work extends well beyond Schachler's conception of paying workers for hours worked, as it demands payment to the society for creating and maintaining workers' capacity to work and conditions in which a socialized economy can function. But Schachler insists he pays for the hours he considers workers are actually working, which makes no sense, as that would equal the entire added-value workers produce leaving nothing for his bonus, dividends for shareholders, retained earnings to invest in the plant, interest for owners of debt or corporate taxes. Beyond his economic misconception, work cannot be isolated from life in his way. Work is integral to the life of workers and society. Without work there is no worker and no society. Without the capacity of workers to work, there is no work, society or life. Work is the central pursuit of life and society is obligated to create and defend conditions where production and reproduction of life continues without crises.
Schachler's conception of paying workers for hours actually worked or their work and its value, goes against the reality of modern workers, their socialized workplaces and society. His concept of paying for hours worked or work is outmoded, as it requires a distortion of the economy and a master/slave relationship that is not in harmony with the reality of socialized work, and besides, workers refuse to accept such a relation and demand one based on the recognition of their rights.
This requires a modern definition of paying workers a portion of the value they create in compliance with the objective conditions. What are those objective conditions?
First, value is created from the work-time of workers transforming the bounty of Mother Earth. How should that value be divided amongst the various social forces?
Three factors come together at workplaces such as Dofasco Hamilton:
1. the human factor, the working class;
2. society, represented by governments;
3. owners of previously produced social property.
What does each factor bring to the workplace?
1. Workers, the human factor, bring their capacity to work at an average level of quality and intensity
2. Society provides the social, economic and political foundation into which workers are born and where work and socialized production, distribution and provision of services can take place, which includes necessary infrastructure and social programs;
3. Owners of capital bring their private ownership of accumulated social property that workers have previously produced.
Within this socialized
framework -- production,
distribution, consumption and the provision of services take place.
Workers are the human factor in the production of value as they
transform the bounty of Mother Earth. Society is the formative organism
creating and defending the social conditions in which the
production and reproduction of life occurs. Owners of capital are the
outmoded and regressive factor that privately owns the socially
produced forces of production and distribution, controls the state and
blocks workers from moving society forward to one that embraces
socialized humanity without class divisions,
one that harmonizes the relations of production with the socialized
forces of production and seeks to create conditions to harmonize
relations among individuals, between individuals and the collective,
and between individuals and their collectives and society.
Flowing from the objective conditions, a modern definition of paying workers a portion of the value they create necessitates an evaluation of the claims of the three factors on the socially produced value. The evaluation of the three claims, which requires upholding the human factor/social consciousness as primary, has to be led by the working class for its own claims with the aim of establishing equilibrium at the workplace based on the recognition of its rights, and both the working class and representatives of society as leading factors in the claims of government and owners of capital. The interests and outlook of owners of capital are too narrow, anti-social and egotistical to be a positive and leading factor in the evaluation of claims.
1. First claim on the socially produced value must be that of the actual producers, the working class holding high their broad outlook and social consciousness. The evaluation of their claim must be led by the workers directly involved and their peers.
2. Second claim on the socially produced value must be that of society. The evaluation of society's claim must come from an assessment of the needs of society to fulfill its duties to its members to guarantee their well-being and to meet the overall demands of the socialized economy and the general interests of society itself.
3. The last claim on socially produced value is that of owners of capital. Their claim must be scrutinized, evaluated and approved by workers and society so that the narrowness of the demands of capital does not damage the well-being of workers, the socialized economy and general interests of society. Within this modern definition emerges a proposal that prices of production be set according to a modern formula that includes an average rate of profit, which falls in inverse relation to growth in productivity in accordance with the law of value.
Owners of capital must accept this modern definition as beneficial for themselves, workers and society and a way to avoid or at least lessen the impact of the recurring crises of capitalism. The claims of owners of capital on socially produced value are outmoded and in contradiction with the socialized economy. Conditions should be developed to eliminate eventually this third claim and only have the claims of workers and their society on socially produced value recognized as legitimate. Only in this way can economic crises and predatory wars of aggression be avoided and harmony established within the socialized economy and society.
Dofasco Hamilton President and CEO Juergen Schachler's unilateral dictate to change the terms of employment including a lengthening of the working day without increasing the claim of workers on the value they produce and his other demands are in contradiction with the objective conditions of the socialized economy, the rights of the working class and a modern definition of paying workers a portion of the value they create. Steelworkers and their allies should roundly denounce and reject his anti-worker anti-social dictate and organize a collective response that rejects in practice his entire decree. Make 2012 at Dofasco, Hamilton and across Canada a year where the working class and its allies uphold the necessity to resist and organize.
January 14, 2011 • Return to Index • Write to: editor@cpcml.ca