With the ratification of a three-year contract, Local
1005 members have concluded the latest
battle for their rights and dignity. Local 1005's conscious act to
resist U.S. Steel's unjust eleven-month lock-out has opened a new
path for the Workers' Opposition and deepened Canadians' understanding
of how to defend the rights of all during this period of
neoliberal globalization. Resistance exposes the enemy for all to see
and deepens our social consciousness and understanding of how to
prepare for the even greater battles that lie ahead.
The owners
and executives of U.S. Steel stand exposed as alien creatures that
bring nothing to Hamilton except their big egos and thieving aims.
The self-serving practice of U.S. Steel shows that Canada's socialized
economy cannot develop and provide security for the people with
U.S. and other monopolies in control of our basic sectors. Their
anti-social interests stand in sharp contradiction with the rights and
interests of Canadians. Their aim to build their empires blocks
Canadian nation-building. Nothing is sacred to those who see Canada,
its workers and natural assets as means to fatten their empires.
The struggle of Local 1005 reveals that our future in
the face of monopoly right is found in uniting, mobilizing and
organizing the
working class to stand up for itself and fight for its security and
rights. Workers themselves, armed with their own thinking and
social consciousness are the human factor on which Canadians can depend.
Local 1005 repeatedly held the federal and Ontario
governments responsible for the defence of Canadians and their rights,
in this case
steelworkers and their steel mill that were under attack by a powerful
foreign predator. The federal and provincial governments refused
to lift a finger as U.S. Steel attacked over ten thousand active and
retired Canadians and young workers just starting out as
steelworkers, shutting down and putting into danger a viable Hamilton
steel mill capable of producing enormous wealth to meet the needs
of the people. Local 1005 repeatedly pointed to the disinforming role
of the local newspaper as it attempted to undermine the
resistance of steelworkers and serve up the Hamilton community and its
members to the anti-Canadian interests of a foreign monopoly.
Workers and their allies supported this work, showing proof of the fact
that once the organized worker's opposition solves the problem
of the weakness of a worker's movement which does not develop its own
independent leading role, governments and the monopoly-controlled
media will be held to account for their refusal to stand with Canadians
in defence of their rights and security.
Local 1005 did not rely on
governments or the monopoly-media to carry its banner. It relied on the
unity and determination
of its own members, retirees and allies in the community and across the
country. It mobilized those directly involved with weekly
meetings to sort out their independent views and strategy. Local 1005
through its own efforts established its own media with members
writing and disseminating their Information
Update and taking their
views to fellow Canadians using billboards, street discussions,
demonstrations, rallies and meetings with all who would discuss the
difficult situation facing the Canadian working class and the way
forward.
The activities of Local
1005 put its own voice in the
fore in defence of the rights of all. It did not rely on those
vacillating forces
that have consistently shown they do not have the best interests of
workers and Canada at heart. It did not get sidetracked either by
those who claim to represent the highest ideals but take responsibility
for nothing. By taking a bold step forward to involve its
members and retirees in discussion on strategy to the best of its
ability and possibilities and to act as a tribune on behalf of
themselves, Local 1005 has opened new ground in building the working
class movement.
The eleven-month attack,
which began as a shutdown of the blast furnace and turned
into a phony lock-out, is a consequence of the owners and
executives of U.S. Steel and their hirelings and fifth column in Canada
hoping to smash the backbone of the Hamilton working class.
This did not happen, far from it! The Hamilton working class has proved
in practice with the staunch resistance of Local 1005 and its
allies at the head that it is coming to grips with the new conditions
in the post-social contract era. This is but the opening shot in
the new era of resistance! The battle will only be won when the rights
and security of all have been secured in law, politics and
practice with the working class in control of its own fate and the
destiny of the country! Local 1005 has demonstrated the way forward
in practice; let working class organizers and politicians, and all
workers and their allies take up the battle in defence of the rights
of all with renewed vigour. Let us together build an effective and
powerful Workers' Opposition.
Tentative Agreement Ratified
- Local 1005 USW -
On Saturday, October 15, members of Local 1005 USW
ratified a three-year contract with U.S. Steel. With 612 of 733
eligible voters
casting a ballot, 61 per cent voted in favour of the contract and 39
per cent were opposed.
Local 1005 pointed out after the vote that all members
were well
informed about the contract. "We wanted to make sure all our members
were fully aware of the situation they face and of the responsibilities
towards not just themselves and their families, but also
towards the retirees, the future generation of workers, their union and
their community," Local 1005 President Rolf Gerstenberger
pointed out.
It is also clear that practically nobody was pleased
with the contract
which contains the two major concessions U.S. Steel would not
budge on -- it gives up indexing on pensions and deprives new hires of
a
defined benefit pension plan. Despite this, to the best of
their ability and for as long as it still had meaning, active and
retired members of Local 1005 showed U.S. Steel in no uncertain terms
that Hamilton steelworkers will kow-tow to no one.
Information Update asked Rolf what he thought
of
the view of the Spectator in particular which seems to
be going out of its way to say that this contract is virtually the same
contract we would have gotten 11 months ago.
"Despite the setback, there is no reason to be
disheartened," Rolf
emphasized. "The Spectator and some side-line commentators
who never believed in the fight in the first place are the ones saying
that what the company offered today is virtually the same as it
offered eleven months ago. This is simply not true but their aim in
making these meaningless evaluations is to say that we should not
have resisted, we should not have organized to get another outcome.
"Not only 11 months ago, but as recently as a couple of
weeks ago, the
Company still thought it could get away with dictating whatever
it wanted. It found out it could not. There is nothing virtual about
the difference between now and eleven months ago. It is only when
a union takes a militant stand in defence of the rights of its members
and its own role as their bargaining agent in the context of
defending the rights of all, that it becomes clear how matters really
stand. Everyone saw what it takes to defend what belongs to us by
right. In the case of the Company, everyone saw what it means to defend
the most narrow self-serving money-grubbing interests of a few
big shots. They saw how dangerous it is to put Canada in foreign hands
and we got an inkling of the fight which lies ahead to hold not
only these companies like U.S. Steel to account but also governments.
"As a result of the militant stand taken by the active
and retired members of Local 1005 and the community, everyone is now
fully aware
of what U.S. Steel is and how its word means nothing.
"Right from the beginning we said our security lies in
the fight for the rights of all. This whole process has taught all of
us the
necessity to stand together. We not only upheld our dignity which the
company sought to trample underfoot, but we understood first hand
that this is the only way forward in the future as well.
"You can see how the Company tried to break its promises
under the Investment Canada Act with impunity and that it
thinks that
there is one law for them, the law of getting away with whatever serves
their momentary interests, and another law for the rest of us,
who lose our houses if we don't pay our mortgages.
"Because the workers fought they were able to show the
entire community how cynical and self-serving a company like U.S. Steel
is, and
the dangers Canada faces in foreign hands.
"Far from this fight being to no avail, it will stand us
in good stead to deal with the serious challenges facing us going
forward.
"The truth of the matter is that the workers' security
lies in the fight for the rights of all. Did we break new ground? Yes,
certainly. In a very practical manner we understood that we have to
fight all over again to establish a regime which favours those who
work and create the wealth Canada depends on for its well-being. The
new regime of labour relations the Government of Canada wants to
impose on the entire country, and the concerted attacks which are being
escalated against unions are just the tip of the iceberg of
what lies ahead. Even as workers thought they would be enjoying their
retirement in security or providing for their families with
security, we now have a better idea of the fight this country faces.
Workers across the country have to join forces in a very real way
like we did in this fight. We have broken new ground by defining our
fight. Now we have to carry it forward. Together we worked out
what was to be done and what could be achieved at this time. We have to
do no less in the future as well. And we will become better at
it. The refusal of U.S. Steel to publicly commit to making the pension
fund solvent and its constant repetition of a decontextualized
interpretation of the law which tries to distort its intent tells us
something about the fight facing us going forward. We will make
sure it is held to account."
On behalf of Local 1005 USW, Rolf expressed profound
gratitude to the community for its support throughout the lockout,
especially to
the workers' families and pensioners, the many union locals and
businesses, city councillors, the Mayor and many others. "We will
continue to stand with all the pensioners who deserved better. We will
continue to fight for a strong union," Rolf concluded.
U.S. Steel's Attempts to Argue "Common Sense"
in Federal Court Backfire
- Local 1005 USW -
When Arrogance and
Stickhandling Give Rise to Abject Humiliation
Abject: Adjective
1. (of a situation or condition) Extremely bad, unpleasant, and
degrading.
2. contemptible; despicable; base-spirited: an abject coward. 3.
shamelessly servile; slavish.
Synonyms: miserable - mean - vile - wretched - despicable - poor
Local 1005 USW is happy to
report that on October 6, steelworkers won a small victory in federal
court. All the definitions of the words abject humiliation
above apply to what steelworkers witnessed there when U.S. Steel lost
its appeal for the second time. "It was truly amazing to see
the mighty U.S. Steel brought to its knees for its incredible arrogance
of thinking that it could appeal a second time the same decision it
already lost once despite having absolutely no new law to argue," Local
1005 USW President Rolf Gerstenberger, present in the court, told Information
Update.
"It
was truly embarrassing to see U.S. Steel's high paid Canadian lawyer
try to stickhandle in the most pathetic way, putting his very integrity
as a lawyer on the line instead of standing up to U.S. Steel's
shenanigans which hold Canadian law and courts in utter contempt. This
is the very same Mr. Barrack who represented
Stelco in Justice Farley's Company Creditor's Arrangement Act
(CCAA) Court. Justice Farley's justice was not real justice and he let
Stelco get away with a fraudulent claim for bankruptcy protection for
purposes of letting it dispossess all its creditors and common
shareholders and to try to blackmail
Local 1005 into giving up its pension. But this time Mr. Barrack's own
bankruptcy went too far. He got what he deserved for his willingness to
give up all notions of professional integrity, to do the bidding of
U.S. Steel," Rolf said. "And let's face it," he added, "In the case of
lawyers, it's not as if standards of integrity
are that high to begin with!"
Local 1005 Executive Jake Lombardo, who was also in the
court to
witness the proceedings, said that for steelworkers it is very shocking
that courts can decide to declare the demands of workers illegal within
days and issue injunctions such as those against Local 1005 when
members and supporters were trying
to stop U.S. Steel from shipping out Hamilton's coke while refusing to
produce steel. But when it comes to declaring illegal the activities of
U.S Steel, it's an entirely different ballgame that drags on for years
and years.
Now that U.S. Steel has been brought to order yet again,
can we now
hope that the main case against U.S. Steel for breaking its production
and employment commitments under the Investment Canada Act
(ICA) may proceed?
Report on October 6 Court
Hearing
On October 6, three
judges of the Federal Court of Appeal summarily dismissed another one
of U.S. Steel's appeals in the Attorney General of Canada's lawsuit.
The judges were so peeved at U.S. Steel for wasting the court's time
they ordered the company to
pay maximum costs.
The judges were obviously not amused with the antics of
high priced
U.S. Steel attorney Michael Barrack. They speedily and without ceremony
interrupted his very poor stickhandling to ask him on exactly what new
legal argument was he basing this second appeal. Under the authority of
what law are you making
this case, asked Justice Stratas, sounding rather annoyed,
constitutional or common law?
Barrack, who admitted before he began that he would
probably "not
have an easy Thursday in court," seemed lost for words and replied
sheepishly, "Under common sense." To the very end he tried to assure
the judges his presentation was going to be brief and he did not intend
to waste their time. Despite this,
people in the court rolled their eyes when Barrack compared the
amendment's demand for monthly production and employment commitments
with the original agreement for annual commitments, as being like
"arresting somebody for speeding and then sentencing him for not mowing
the lawn." In fact, the entire
court was scandalized by this attempt to waste the Court's time on the
basis of this so-called common sense! (See notes below on the amendment
U.S. Steel was appealing for the second time.)
The judges appeared annoyed at Barrack's comparison and
began to
glance at their watches. Barrack shuffled his papers and, trying to
strike a serious tone of someone who knows how to run a steel mill,
said one cannot ask for monthly commitments in production and
employment because there are months where
there are shutdowns for maintenance for example and it may be that
during such a month zero steel is produced and zero workers are
employed.
"Uh oh," said the steelworkers in the court. Since U.S.
Steel took
over Stelco that was precisely the problem: month after month zero
steel is produced and zero workers are employed. This "common sense"
argument was so incredibly silly, it was hard to believe their ears,
they told Information Update.
The judges abruptly called for a 15 minute recess but
after half an
hour had still not returned. The court was buzzing with the expectation
that the judges were writing their ruling and that would be it. Someone
remarked that it was because of this kind of U.S. Steel stalling tactic
that a justice ruled last November
for the amendment. The court case has now dragged on well past the
three year period of U.S. Steel's commitments under the ICA from
November 1, 2007 to October 31, 2010.
The judges returned to the court and told John Syme, the
lawyer for
the Attorney General, that it was pointless for him to present the
Attorney General's defence of the amendment as they had already written
up their dismissal of the appeal and did not want to spend any more
time on the matter. They then agreed
with Syme that U.S. Steel should pay maximum costs. Justice Stratas
concluded that this was now the third level of court hearing dedicated
to this amendment, implying openly that they hoped it would be the last.
Notes on the Amendment
The Amendment drawn up by
Prothonotary (Justice) Martha Milczynski November 25, 2010 because of
the stalling of U.S. Steel states that monthly commitments under the
authority of the ICA will come into effect following the conclusion of
the court case if the company
loses the lawsuit. The amendment could force U.S. Steel to find ways to
meet the original production and employment commitments following the
date of the final ruling or face mounting financial penalties for a
full three years.
The amended paragraph 3 of the application (Federal
Court, February 25, 2011) now requests the Court to issue an order
directing U.S. Steel to:
"a. Produce X million tons of steel at the Canadian
Business, as
defined in this Application, at a rate of 4.345 million tons per year
following the issuance of the Court's order in this matter where:
"X= Y-Z; Y= 13.035 million tons; Z= total tons of steel
produced by
the Canadian Business in those months during the Term, as defined in
the Application, where steel production equalled or exceeded 362,083
tons; and
"b. maintain an average employment level of 3,105
employees on a
full time equivalent basis over X months following the issuance of the
Court's order in this matter, where:
"X=Y-Z; Y=36 months; Z= the number of months during the
Term in
which the Canadian Business's average employment level equalled or
exceeded 3,105 employees on a full time equivalent basis."
GM
Autoworkers Must Heed Threats to Their Pensions and
Take Appropriate Action to Defend Their Rights
Threats to the security of GM pensions in the U.S. must
be taken seriously in Canada. The onslaught on retired autoworker
health
care benefits began in the U.S. and soon moved north. GM executives
made it clear during their campaign to renege on contracted health
care benefits that they hold no responsibility for any Canadian
post-employment benefits including pensions. GM executives in their
class action lawsuit against retirees in Ontario and Quebec went so far
as to declare that they have the right "to unilaterally
terminate" any post-employment benefit they consider detrimental to
the U.S. monopoly's viability.
The recently ratified GM/UAW collective agreement
contains an addendum entitled: "Pension De-Risk Consideration: 2011
UAW-GM
Supplemental Agreement Exhibit A (Pension Plan)."
The letter states in part, "The parties agreed that the
national parties may mutually agree during the term of this agreement
to
amend the [pension] plan to add retirement options for some or all
existing retirees to help GM reduce the volatility and risk related
to the plan and benefit existing retirees by providing an additional
voluntary option."
This language replicates that used to destroy the system
of post-employment health care benefits, which had become for retirees
a
legal collective claim on GM revenue. GM unilaterally negated retirees
claim to secure health care with its introduction of a Health
Care Trust (HCT), also known in the U.S. as voluntary employee benefits
association (VEBA) which, once established, is no longer funded from
company revenue. Retirees did not agree or vote to have their health
care benefits reduced and put into an HCT. The HCT was simply declared
a necessary part of GM's anti-worker anti-social restructuring
"to reduce the volatility and risk of the existing plan and make the
company viable." No alternative was discussed or allowed to be
discussed. GM, with the active instigation of governments, simply
dictated the destruction of the existing contracted health care
obligation. Retirees did not agree or vote to destroy the contracted
health care benefit system and replace it with the HCT that
effectively reduces their benefits. GM, the governments and courts
forcibly introduced the HCT as part of GM's anti-worker anti-social
restructuring in 2009 and are now putting it into practice.
U.S. autoworkers protest
government scheme to permit GM to absolve itself of obligations
to provide
retirees with health care benefits so as to
qualify for bailout funds.The current GM/UAW letter "to amend the [pension] plan"
implies that GM has the right to change the pension system without the
agreement of the retirees who no longer can vote for or against
collective agreements. GM says it has the right "to unilaterally
terminate" any post-retirement benefit and the letter "Pension De-Risk"
reiterates this belief. The fact that it is couched in vague
terms such as "voluntary options" and "mutually agree" is meant to fool
the gullible and give GM a blank cheque.
GM has no right to change the pension system without the
conscious participation and informed consent of the retirees. However,
retirees can only make their public right to a say in the security of
their pensions a reality through restricting GM's monopoly right
to change unilaterally their pension plan. No other force than a united
determined opposition by retirees themselves can stop GM's
monopoly right "to add retirement options for some or all existing
retirees to help GM," as the letter states.
The courts will not help workers as they have already
ruled that GM has the right "to unilaterally terminate" health care
benefits
and replace them with the HCT. Governments have refused to help and
hold GM to account for unilaterally breaking contracted
obligations. Quite the opposite. The Ontario, federal and U.S.
governments egged on GM to break its commitments to retirees under the
hoax of an anti-worker anti-social restructuring to make the monopoly
viable through concessions and bailouts using public money.
Those governments have
consistently refused to introduce
comprehensive public health care coverage for all members of society
and
have blocked any progressive movement towards a universal retirement
system that guarantees workers the security of the standard of
living they fought for and acquired during their active working lives
funded from a government claim on the collective wealth workers
produce annually. It is the height of narrow self-serving duplicity and
capital-centred ignorance that governments, courts and the
monopolies insist that tearing down the standard of living of the
working class is a solution to the general economic crisis or the
particular problems of a company. To argue and carry out in practice
that the way a monopoly can be viable is by negating the rights of
its workers, lowering their standard of living, wrecking the means of
production and paying the rich with public money reflect a system
that needs a fundamental change and new direction. Concessions are not
solutions! Stop paying the rich! Manufacturing yes! Nation-wrecking no!
GM's threat to retirees' pensions in the U.S. must be
taken seriously in Canada. Actions with analysis should be organized at
once
to tell GM, the other auto monopolies and governments that these
attempts to undermine the security of autoworkers' pensions will be
met with determined resistance and will not pass!
Autoworker retirees do not want "voluntary options;"
they want their pension plans made whole, solvent and secure now! That
is the
law, that is GM's contracted obligation and that is the inalienable
public right of autoworkers!
Defend
the
Pensions
We Have! Fight for
Pensions for All!
Monopoly Right No! Public Right Yes!
Fraser Paper
Oppose Legalized Theft of Pensions --
Retirees Form Victims of Brookfield
Association
- Interview, Clyde Winchester, President,
Edmundston Retirees Committee -
Fraser Paper
retirees demonstrate
in
Gatineau, QC, Edmunston, NB and Toronto, ON
against theft of pensions, January 2011.
On October 6, retirees of the former Fraser Paper from
Edmunston, New
Brunswick and Thurso, Quebec, joined forces to form the Victims
of Brookfield Association. The Fraser Paper retirees lost up to 35 per
cent of their pensions when forestry monopoly Fraser Paper
entered bankruptcy protection in 2009, was restructured and
subsequently sold to Twin Rivers Paper Co., which currently operates
mills
in Edmunston and Madawaska in the state of Maine. As a result, some
2,000 unionized Fraser Paper Canadian pensioners have seen their
retirement investments slashed. About 1,600 of them live in New
Brunswick and the others are in Ontario and Quebec. Workers call this
scheme the Brookfield Asset Management Fraud because Brookfield held
the
controlling interest in Fraser Paper and still does in Twin
Rivers Paper. It bankrupted the company, restructured it and sold it to
itself, closing some plants (including the Thurso mill),
reducing the wages and the benefits of those who remained working there
and drastically cutting the retirees' pensions.
Posted below is an interview with Clyde Winchester, the
President of
the Edmunston Retirees Committee.
TML: First of all, congratulations on
the
founding of the Victims of Brookfield Association. You are
joining those retirees and active workers across the country who are
stepping up their fight against the legalized theft of
pensions.
Clyde Winchester: Thank you. Our
association represents the retirees of former Fraser Paper in Edmunston
and Atholville in New Brunswick and Thurso in Quebec. Our committee in
Edmunston was very active for over a year and a half before we
launched the association. We have done representations; we have done
research. We have about 350 Fraser Paper retirees in Edmunston at
the moment. The Edmunston mill is still in operation under the name of
the new company Twin Rivers while the mill in Atholville was
part of Fraser until it was closed at the beginning of the 1990s.
The aim of the association is first to recuperate the
monies we have
lost. Our newly formed association has decided to go directly
against Brookfield Asset Management. The reason for this is that we
cannot go against Fraser Paper because it does not exist any more.
Brookfield closed Fraser Paper and reopened under a new name, Twin
Rivers -- the same place, the same workers, the same wages and
services but with a different name. From my apartment I can still see
the same plant where I worked for 37 years. It is the same mill
but a part of our pensions has disappeared. It is Brookfield that has
pulled the strings for all these years.
When Fraser Paper went under bankruptcy protection, the
first place
they went to get money was our pension funds, $170 million. Even
those who are still working at the Edmunston mill will lose the same
amount as us when they retire, 35.4 per cent of their pensions.
Our association wants these monies back. We have decided to launch a
class action against Brookfield Asset Management. Our aim is to expose
publicly the real
nature of Brookfield Asset Management. They are worth billions
but when it comes to workers and their pensions, they couldn't care
less. We expect to go before the Court either at the end of October
or beginning of November.
TML: In your press release, you say
retirees and active workers are united in this struggle. Can you
elaborate?
CW: This is very important. We say we
must
all work together. It is all the same union, the same workers,
the same friends. We all know each other. And we are all in the same
boat. If we each go our own way it is only going to get worse. It
is better to be together than to be divided. It is important for the
people of the region too. It is important for them to see we are
all working together rather than each one in our own group going our
separate ways. It makes people more optimistic because otherwise
they have the impression we are just quarrelling with one another.
TML: Can you give us some idea of the
impact of these pension cuts?
CW: In my case, I worked for Fraser
paper
for 37 years. They were 37 good years but I decided to retire. I
had done my share of work and wanted to enjoy a peaceful life in
retirement. Just a year and a half after I retired, my pension was cut
by 35.4 per cent.
The impact on all the retirees is huge. In my case, I
lost $1,000 of my monthly pension. It is a huge
amount. It has only been five years since I
retired, but those who retired 20 to 25 years ago have a smaller
pension than mine so the impact on them after being cut by 35.4 per
cent is even greater. Many of those who retired a long time ago have to
go on social welfare now. You work because we all have to work, but you
want to
get your pension and you think they are going to thank you for
those good years of service and giving them your body and life. You
think, well now it is my turn to go
home and enjoy my retirement, but then you lose $1,000 a
month.
We have emphasized in the media that this is a problem
for the region
also. We don't have the same amount of money to spend in the
community. Your life and the life of the people in the region changes.
TML: Your work is a contribution to the
same struggle developing across the whole country against the
legalized theft of pensions and other benefits that belong to the
workers by right.
CW: Yes, I agree with that. People all
across the country are worried because if companies like Brookfield
Asset Management get away with what they do, then any big company can
do it. What is happening to us is a trend in the country. Maybe
this is done legally, but it is not just. We do not accept that at all.
We are going to fight until we die or run out of money
completely but we hope it won't come to that! We have no choice. I
think we are helping wake up Canada. Edmunston is not that big --
there are only about 15,000 people in the town. People know that if we
can do this, it can be done anywhere in Canada.
October 22, 2011 Bulletin • Return to Index • Write to:
editor@cpcml.ca
The federal government has now officially
announced that for the next 20 to 30 years, the Halifax Shipyards owned
by
the Irving
billionaire clan from New Brunswick, will be building $25 billion worth
of warships for the Canadian navy.
The telling feature of today's
disinformation surrounding the naval contracts is the absence of any
mention or discussion of the war
preparations the government is dragging Canada into. No discussion
takes place of what militarizing the economy entails. The government
claims that it is cutting costs, but this does not include military
spending which is wasteful and unproductive. There is also the
militarization of the workplace which will take place as armed thugs
are brought in to guarantee production and the company's dictate.
How many thug "foremen" will the federal government and the Irving
capitalists be arming to police how the contract work is completed
inside the shipyard? How many minutes will the workers be permitted to
down tools for breaks before the Irvings and the armed forces
at their disposal impose their dictate? What restrictions will they
impose on the unions?
