It's ON

CAW President sounding the alarm of a blue scare

There's a provincial election, and it's getting serious.

How do you know an election is getting serious in Canada? When union leaders start sounding the alarm and calling for strategic voting. There's a blue scare afoot, and Canadian Auto Workers President Ken Lewenza intends to make it as scary as he possibly can.

"We're asking our members to get politically involved," Lewenza announced. "Look at the campaign and ask yourself... who represents your community and your household the best. I think (people will see) the alternatives are clear. We can't waste our vote on a third party candidate that could split the vote and allow a Tory to win."

Like Buzz Hargrove before him -- Hargrove was kicked out of the NDP for encouraging strategic voting during the 2005-06 federal election -- Lewenza has chosen to back away from being an NDP stalwart, and instead encourage members of his unions to blindly vote againt Tim Hudak and the Conservative Party.

"We marched the New Democrat line," he continued. "We thought, ‘this is our party,' but today we have to be more proactive. You have to think strategically to avoid a disaster... If I had it my way, I would try and convince the New Democrats and Liberals to form an electoral coalition so they're not knocking each other off."

Apparently, the prospect of a Conservative government in Ontario is so scary that Lewenza would, if he could, beat his head against the wall trying to convince the Liberals and NDP to work together to defeat them. He chooses to ignore the correlation between banging your head against the wall and headaches by blaming his headache on the Conservatives.

The Conservatives, it seems, aren't prepared to blindly commit themselves to further economic stimulus, even in the wake of a slowly-recovering Ontario economy. Lewenza would really like it if someone would.

"Even though some would suggest Ontario has recovered on a per capita basis... the fact of the matter is that most jobs being created are part-time and precarious in nature," he declared. "Government intervention in jobs is important."

The detail that the billions of dollars already doled out by the federal and Ontario governments has led to jobs that Lewenza considers "precarious" seems to have little impact on his assessment of it. He somehow thinks more of the same would somehow turn out differently.

Perhaps there's even more to it than that. Lewenza would clearly prefer a government that would bow to the demands of unions over the demands of the rest of Ontarians.

"Even though [labour unions] represent 30 per cent of the Ontario population, we influence 100 per cent of some of the public policy issues on things like minimum wage, pensions and health care," Lewenza added. "People are going to have to be reminded that if there's an aggressive challenge against the labour movement, it normally results in more lost time off work."

Hudak, it seems, is not that leader. He's willing to consider the views of people other than labour union leaders.

"We know the history of Mr Hudak in cabinet with [former Premier Mike] Harris," Lewenza recalled. "I remember it like it was yesterday. The first act Mike Harris introduced in the legislature was to dismantle legislation to allow workers to join a union harassment-free. They disbanded the wage protection program for workers."

In fact, Hudak voted with Harris for legislation that required secret ballot votes before a workplace could unionize, stripping unions of the ability to harass and intimidate workers who voted against unionization. It's no surprise that union leadership opposed such legislation.

The election in Ontario is getting serious. For Ken Lewenza, it's as serious as a heart attack. The prospects of a Progressive Conservative government threaten to undermine the disproportionate political influence of labour unions.

It's something that Ontarians should actually welcome. But Lewenza is too busy trying to make them afraid.

Global Leftism Wears Its Mania on Its Sleeve

Frances Russell lays her cards on the table...

...And they're all jokers.

How else to explain the embarrassing (if only Russell had the sense to be ebmarrassed) op/ed, entitled "Banking, Smoke and Mirrors", published in the Winnipeg Free Press?

If any doubt remained that Russell is, in fact, an extreme leftist, this op/ed piece ought to dispell any such doubt.

In the article, Russell counter-factually insists that the Canadian government did, indeed, bailout its banks, and so should support the global banking tax being pushed by various Eurpean left-wing governments.

In order to make this case, Russell channels economics Jim Stanford and Michel Choussudovsky.

These are, of course, no ordinary economists. Stanford is currently in the employ of the Canadian Auto Workers union -- essentially a labour front for the NDP. The other individual, Choussudovsky, is currently involved with the Centre for Research on Globalization.

Describing itself as an "independent research and media group of progressive writers, scholars and activists committed to curbing the tide of 'globalisation' and 'disarming' the New World Order", the organization's website is an eye-opener on how seriously the organization should be taken.

Among other things, the organization has been a haven for 9/11 truthers ranging from the University of Lethbridge's Anthony J Hall to Louis Farrakhan.

A global bank tax would be a rather odd initiative for a group opposing the so-called "New World Order" to support. After all, attempting to impose such a measure is actually a globalizing influence. Clearly, the difference is that this is their globalization (which they believe to be good). It shockingly resembles measures proposed by left-wing globalist George Monbiot, who has embraced the climate change cause simply because it will aid his efforts to push for a global parliament.

In fact, a global tax on bank transactions was the means by which Monbiot has insisted that such a Parliament would be funded.

Based on something like this, it's nearly impossible for a rational person to see the global bank tax for what it really is: as a tool of imposing global leftism on the rest of the world. Which, apparently, is the good kind of globalization.

Russell concludes her op/ed by suggesting that Canadians should judge Stephen Harper and the Conservative Party by what she says they have done -- supporting de-regulation of banking -- and not by what they have actually done -- introducing a federal securities regulator.

Just as it's impossible to take the Centre for Research on Globalization seriously, it's becoming very difficult to take Frances Russell seriously.

CAW Has Done the Right Thing

But Chrysler will have to reciprocate in time

Re-negotiating CAW's lucrative labour contract with Chrysler must be the hardest thing CAW President Ken Lewenza imagined he would ever have to do.

Yet that is precisely what Lewenza has done. In doing so, he's saved thousands of jobs for his constituents in the Canadian Autoworkers Union.

In voting to accept a cost-cutting deal with Chrysler that will save thousands of jobs, the CAW have themselves an immense service.

Naturally, not everyone sees it the same way. Especially militant is former CAW President Buzz Hargrove, who blamed the government for the entire affair. "I'm angry as hell," he fumed. "I'm not angry at my union, they've done an incredible job. I'm angry at a government. A government that has used a heavy hand -- Mr. Clement and Mr. Bryant, the provincial government as well -- to force workers to give up things that they've worked hard and gained over the years."

It isn't surprising. Hargrove had already made an appearance on a special episode of CBC's Dragon's Den insisting that the government should extend automakers an unconditional bail out -- adamantly refusing to admit that extending such a bailout without a significant restructuring of the companies' operations would inevitably result in further financial trouble for those companies, and further lost jobs. Possibly even another bail out down the road.

Hargrove's sense of entitlement seems to have not wavered one iota. When he appeared on the Dragon's Den Hargrove showed up with his hands in his pockets, almost entirely unprepared to defend his position, and offering little to persuade anyone that such a bail out should be extended at all.

"It's unprecedented where a government would step in and say: 'You're going to cut your wages by $19 an hour,'" Hargrove grumbled. "You know, there's over 20 countries around the world -- France, Italy, Germany, Japan, Australia, New Zealand - all of these countries around the world are pumping money into the auto sector because of the worldwide economic crisis we find ourselves in."

Yet Hargrove overlooks the fact that it wasn't the government that demanded Chrysler cut its wage costs by $19 an hour -- that was Fiat, the partner in the merger that will hopefully save that company.

Despite Hargrove's objections, CAW has indeed done the right thing. But this is far from the end of the story.

In time, the onus will eventually fall on Chrysler to also do the right thing and reciprocate CAW's good will. This should come in the form of a structured plan to restore the conceded wages and benefits once the company becomes profitable again.

A situation where a labour union makes concessions to help a struggling company stay afloat shouldn't be tolearted. Having done the right thing for both themselves and Chrysler, CAW shouldn't be betrayed like many other companies have done in the past.

CAW May Let GM, Chrysler Die

Autoworkers Union unwilling to save workers' jobs

Without receiving bailout dollars, General Motors and Chrysler may both be in bankruptcy within the next 60 days.

If this happens, both companies would likely halt their operations while they are liquidated.

CAW, the Canadian Autoworkers' Union, could help prevent this by making key wage concessions that would allow Fiat to forge ahead with a merger with Chrysler that could save that company.

At $19 per hour, the concession being asked of CAW seems steep. But not when one considers that, between wages and benefits, the average CAW worker receives $76 in total compensation per hour, for a total of $156,000 per year. Under the proposed restructured labour deal, this average total renumeration would be reduced to $57 per hour, for a total of $112,000 per year.

Without these concessions, according to the judgement of nearly any economist, government bail outs of automakers would accomplish nothing in the end -- the companies would continue to be perpetually unprofitable, as they continue to undercut any potential profits by paying for overpriced labour.

While CAW has agreed to negotiate reductions beyond what has already been agreed to, it's unlikely that they will agree to give up the $19 per hour that Fiat is demanding. This makes it all the more likely that the company will be lost within the next month.

Unless GM receives a similar deal, it will likely be in bankruptcy one month after that.

All the jobs of those working on auto assembly lines for these two companies would be lost -- and all because CAW refuses to admit to the economic realities facing these two countries.

The government cannot afford to continually bail out perpetually unprofitable firms.

Only 13% of CAW's 225,000 members work for automakers.

Thus, the government stepping in with a bailout without CAW making the kind of concessions necessary to allow these companies to operate profitably could only really be for the benefit for those working for these companies -- approximately 29,250.

Canadian tax dollars should be spent for the benefit of all Canadians -- all 30 million of them -- whenever possible. Spending billions of dollars in taxpayers' funds to ensure that 29,250 people can continue to earn more than $150,000 a year is nothing more than spending superfluous amounts of government funds to ensure the extravagant material benefit of a tiny portion of Canadian society. Moreover, the government would be doing this only to have to inevitably have to do it again.

Only to CAW, an organization so chronically self-indulgent that only CUPE really compares, would something like this make sense.

Tony Clement's refusal to ride to the rescue in the absence of any realistica attempt by CAW to restructure its labour agreement so GM and Chrysler can afford to continue operating may not be popular with members of that union or their families, or even those who sympathize with organized labour.

But it is the right decision. To continually bail out less than 30,000 people to the expense of 30 million people is simply not an option for any responsible government.

It isn't Tony Clement, the Conservative party, or the Canadian government that are prepared to allow Chrysler or General Motors to slip into bankruptcy. It's the Canadian Auto Workers union that are allowed to let these companies -- and all the jobs they provide -- simply die.

Gaudet Hacked, Buzz Sawed

In January 2009, the CBC hosted a special edition of the Dragons' Den in which they entertained presentations on how to fix the Canadian Economy. Among the presenters were Kevin Gaudet and Buzz Hargrove.

On the program, the Dragons were given a hypothetical $20 billion that they could spend however they thought could best stimulate the economy.

Gaudet, the national director of the Canadian Taxpayers' Federation, presented first, calling for tax reflief:



Gaudet began by suggesting there's a high level of consensus in favour of tax relief, citing support for the idea from Barack Obama's chief economic adviser, Christina Romer, citing her insistence that every $1 of tax relief stimulates an economy threefold.

More importantly, Gaudet came with specific recommendations on how that tax relief -- a full $20 billion worth -- could be implemented on a permanent, structural basis.

However, Gaudet wanted to direct that tax relief almost exclusively toward Middle Class taxpayers, with a very small portion going to business. Irene Darra's question about whether or not Canadians would spend that money or save it -- or use it to pay down debt -- seems more than a little ridiculous.

Considering that the global economy is currently grappling with an economic crisis built on defaulting debts it seems that tax relief being used to pay down debt would actually be a very positive step.

There's little question that the Canadian economy wouldn't be stimulated by the full hypothetical $20 billion. But a consumer carrying a smaller debt load is a consumer with cause for greater confidence.

Gaudet was followed by former Canadian Autoworkers Union President Buzz Hargrove, who called on the Dragons to "forget about" the CTF and forget about tax relief:



Compared to Gaudet, who arrived with a well-prepared presentation, Hargrove's presentation was poorly concieved. His delivery was worse.

Hargrove pushed hard for an exclusive push toward not only a stimulus package, but for a stimulus program that would focus largely on the auto and forestry industry.

Hargrove peddled a victim mentality, arguing that the allegedly-otherwise mighty North American automakers have been victimized by bad government policy (although he failed to elaborate on which policies were allegedly harming the auto industry), a discouraging credit market and by what he deemed unfair trade practices.

He called for stimulus of the credit market and protectionist measures -- particularly against Asian carmakers. Hargrove somehow overlooks the fact that Toyota in particular is one of the few automakers actually opening new plants in Canada as opposed to closing them.

Hargrove's suggestion that leasing may be a better model for carmakers is an intriguing idea. But Hargrove's suggestion that credit should be loosened up so consumers can take on more debt at a time of economic uncertainty is ill-conceived.

For one thing, the low consumer condfidence argument has to be considered to apply. One would be foolish to think that consumers who are leery about spending money would be interested in taking on additional debt load in order to do so.

Neither Gaudet nor Hargrove got a particularly gentle ride from the Dragons. There's good reason for this.

Gaudet and Hargrove both represent the extreme ends of the ideological spectrum that together navigated the global economy into the crisis that it's currently in.

Gaudet's focus on tax relief and allowing market forces to run their course unimpeded has already shown its toxic effects. After all, the kind of unscrupulous greed that helped precipitate this crisis should properly be considered to be a market force, likewise with the notions of anyone who thinks they should be able to earn money without producing anything of value.

Hargrove's argument that the hypothetical $20 billion should be spent heavily on the auto industry is not only clearly self-interested -- even if he isn't the president of CAW anymore, he clearly has an intrest in seeing the organization succeed -- but it also overlooks the highly questionable record of Keynesian economics over the past forty years.

In hindsight, one certainly couldn't envy Gaudet or Hargrove. The Dragons' Den seems like an extremely intense environment. Any environment that can seemingly stagger a consumate tax fighter like Kevin Gaudet cannot be taken lightly.

The propositions of both men merely reflect the alternating extremes of economic policy followed over the past thirty years. The Dragons were right to adopt the propositions of neither man, and were probably right to decline to give a red cent to the big three automakers.


Other bloggers writing about this topic:

Rick Spence - "Dragons Second-Guess Stephen Harper"

Ontario Working Families Coalition Not a Legitimate Third Party Advertiser

Difference between legitimate third parties and front groups

According to the Ontario Progressive Conservative party, the Working Families Coalition is merely a front group for the Ontario Liberal party, and they want Elections Ontario to designate it as such.

The group, established and funded by education and trades unions in 2002, was established (in the words of Gary O’Neil) “to give a voice to working men, women and their families throughout Ontario.”

According to Canadian Auto Workers president Buzz Hargrove, the groups purpose is very different. It was established “to make sure the Tories don’t get elected here.”

O’Neil himself is the president of Operating Engineers local 793, a union that has donated more than $65,000 to the Ontario Liberals since 2002.

In a video on the coalition’s website, O’Neil even regurgitates some typical Liberal-style talking points. “With an Ontario election on October 10th, we need to ensure we don’t return to policies of fear and division,” he insists.

The Working Families Coalition is very partisan, indeed. Does that in and of itself make them a “front group?”

Not necessarily.

Does the involvement of Don Guy, Dalton McGuinty’s reelection campaign director make them a front group?

Absolutely.

The involvement of those individuals at the very least undermines McGuinty’s claims that “They're an independent organization and they're going to do whatever they want to do.”

Yet, one can rest assured that so long as Guy and senior Liberal strategist Marcel Weider are involved with the coalition, “whatever they want to do” will probably involve continuing partisan attacks against John Tory and the Conservative party.

That’s far from being independent.

Of course, to regulate every individual interest group as part of a party’s campaign every time they released a partisan statement would actually be setting a very risky precedent.

The right of individual lobby groups to support parties and candidates that support their cause is part and parcel of democratic freedom, and the right to be involved in the democratic process. This is one of the reasons why putting spending limits on third-party campaign advertising is fundamentally wrong.

Gary O’Neil and the Operating Engineers union have every right to donate money to any political party of their choosing. They have the right to support any party they wish, and they have the right to do so as a third party if they so choose, or to do so by becoming directly involved in their party of choice’s campaign.

These two acts, however, are inherently different from one another, and both must be regarded differently by elections law.

To this end, Canada clearly needs new rules regarding who actually qualifies as a third party, and who doesn’t.

The Canadian Auto Workers Union, along with most of the groups backing the WFC (although some may find it difficult to explain how white-collar engineers such as O’Neil qualify as “working families”), qualify as legitimate third parties, holding only indirect links to the Liberal party and New Democrats.

The Working Families Coalition, considering its brazenly partisan foundation, doesn’t. Through Guy and Wieder, the WFC holds some direct links to the Ontario Liberals and their campaign. No Gun, No Funeral doesn’t either. It can be traced directly to Michael Bryant, and as such, both organizations should be counted toward the Ontario Liberal party’s campaign spending.

Colby Cosh is right about one thing: the government can’t regulate partisanship, nor should it try. It can, however, investigate who is involved in interest groups and determine precisely who is pulling the strings. When that turns out to be political candidates and their campaign staffers, it’s pretty fair to conclude that these organizations are being used to tip toe around election spending limits and stage shadow campaigns against their political opponents.

A shadow campaign is still a campaign, and should still count toward election expenses, at least when the candidates are directly involved.

Buzz Hargrove Loses Control

"Unauthorized strike" tells interesting story

Times are tough for Buzz Hargrove.

Following the 2006 federal election, wherein he violated NDP rules by supporting "strategic voting" (read: selling out to the Liberal party), his party membership was revoked. In retaliation, Hargrove called on all CAW members to renounce the New Democrats -- despite Jack Layton's assertion that he wouldn't have expelled Hargrove. Last month, Ontario bus driver Willie Lambert threw his hat into the ring to challenge Hargrove for the presidency of the Canadian Auto Workers union (also known as CAW).

Now, to make matters worse for Hargrove, CAW workers at a General Motor plants in Oshawa, Ontario have gone on what he refers to as an "unauthorized strike". The strike could cripple these operations, and threaten the jobs of hundreds, according to Hargrove.

The strike began in earnest on friday, more than a full day prior to a Saturday midnight deadline during which Hargrove and GM would continue to negotiate regarding wages and the quantity of future work.

Yet, somehow, Hargrove has a little rebellion on his hands. The workers that he claims to represent and work for have rejected his edict, and taken matters into their own hands. How could this be?

The answer to this question is simple: Hargrove simply may not have the trust of CAW members any longer. When he severed official ties between the CAW and the NDP, Hargrove removed the CAW from Canada's largest, most comprehensive labour coalition in Canada. All the other "big unions" (such as CUPE) remain aligned with the NDP. CAW leadership claimed they had a majority vote from CAW members, yet have never released an official vote tally to prove it.

Hargrove's hold over CAW has been reported to be tenuous for some time now. At many CAW protests, many members have been spotted wearing "Buzz Off" T-shirts that were distributed within the union by Hargrove's rivals.

The prognosis is evidently clear.

After fourteen years of holding the CAW presidency (he was first acclaimed as CAW president in 1992, and has never been defeated), it's become obvious that Hargrove has become unable to separate his own interests from that of the CAW, or the workers he represents. In March, Hargrove insisted that "the action of the Ontario NDP is a direct attack on the CAW and our members."

Combine this with the fallout from his election-time abandonment of the NDP and subsequent denunciation of them, then consider the fact that this took up much of the time that Hargrove should have been using to try to and protect his workers from Ford lay-offs, and the picture becomes clear.

Buzz Hargrove is not as in charge as he would like a lot of people to believe. But then again, this may not be a very recent development. On www.westernstandard.ca (on January 26), a CAW member identifying himsefl as "Chazz", wrote: " As a CAW member in Ontario, I can tell you that Buzz is absolutely despised by many union people at the local level and the national level. He should have stepped aside before the last CAW elections, but he hung on."

It could be considered in terms of the butterfly effect. Hargrove got a little too comfortable in his position, and a ripple started. As years progressed, and he became bolder and bolder, he eventually alienated much of his party membership, and these waves are now climbing ever higher. A 2005 settlement between GM and CAW that many workers were disatisfied with (but Hargrove considered satisfactory) may turn out to be the tsunami that erradicates Hargrove's CAW presidency.

In the end, Hargrove may simply have forgotten where he came from. A ROB Magazine salary survey reports that Hargrove earns $131,110.00 per year... probably much more than the rank-and-file CAW members whom he "represents". It isn't terribly likely that the average CAW worker earns that kind of scratch.

As a result, Hargrove's complacency began to shine through in spectacular ways. In 2005, Hargrove announced, " It's inevitable that we'll face some downsizing at GM, as we do at the other two companies. That's the pack of cards we're playing with."
Yet somehow, Hargrove's own job was secure enough that he could spend precious time climbing into bed with Paul Martin and the Liberal party -- time that should have been spent trying to save CAW jobs.

In the end, Chazz himself may describe Hargrove's trouble's best: " ...Like the federal government, change is needed right now at the CAW. Buzz's days are numbered. Not a minute too soon."

The time for CAW to have a president who will actually stand up for workers -- and not pursue his own ill-concieved political career -- has long passed.

Hargrove: Vote For Separatists To Block Separatists

Fucking up 101

It is truly a beautiful day in the neighbourhood today, as erstwhile federal Liberal booster and long-time political sychophant Buzz Hargrove has traded sucking Paul Martin’s dick for taking a long suck on his own foot.

Hargrove, the president of the Canadian Autoworkers Union – who recently shifted his allegiance from the NDP to the Liberals rather abruptly – created big ol’ waves of shit for Liberal leader Paul Martin yesterday with some rather controversial remarks.

“[Stephen Harper’s] view of the country is a separatist view,” Hargrove announced at a campaign stop in Strathroy, Ontario, while standing not two feet away from Liberal leader Paul Martin. At the base of Hargrove’s comments were Harper’s plans to de-centralize certain government powers, about which Hargrove said: “If you devolve all the powers to the provinces, what do you have left?”

A less powerful federal government with less ability to steal from it’s own people?

No? Separatism? OK…

But wait, there’s more! Hargrove also took aim at – surprise, surprise – Alberta, saying that the values shared by Albertans are “repulsive to most Canadians”. Also, vote for the Bloc (a separatist party) in order to block the Conservatives from power.

In other words: vote for actual separatists to prevent alleged separatists from coming to power.

Maybe it’s time for Hargrove to stop guzzling so much of Paul Martin’s man-chowder, because this is getting rather embarrassing – for both of them, in what was a Trailer Park Boys-esque Randy-and-Leahy moment.

Speaking of embarrassment, such was the look on Harper’s face when he was forced to defend Stephen Harper’s stance on federalism, saying: “I have large differences with Stephen Harper but I have never doubted his patriotism.” ...Except at the start of the campaign, when he needled Harper over his seeming inability to say “ I love Canada THIS much!”

Even despite his new puppet master’s newly-sought distance from this renounced, self-important jackass, Hargrove has yet to really change his stance on his comments. “My point was, what do Canadians want? Do we want a leader that believes in strong federal institutions, a strong federal government, that sets minimum standards for the provinces? If you do, you need Paul Martin or Jack Layton,” he said, reaffirming his love for Jack Layton – the man who he immediately stabbed in the back as he began this election’s go-‘round of politicking.

One may in fact call it poetic justice – Hargrove may well turn out to be a factor in this election for the Liberals, but not in the way he intended. He may have fucked up his inept puppet master’s hail-Mary pass to attempt to deliver his party victory in an election that is so nearly all but lost. Furthermore, it only demonstrates the futility of the “vote to block the Conservatives” plea: it is proof the Liberal party has nothing real to offer Canadians, and must rely on fear to get back into power.

But one thing is of absolute certainty: Hargrove has demonstrated his view of Canada: one in which breaking the country apart is infinitely preferable to responsible government.