Workers Win (Local 6500 vs VALE INCO)

They say nobody wins in a strike and certainly after a year the workers will never regain the income they lost and the company will never regain it's lost production, and in this case the extra expenses incurred on scabs and security to pretend they were operating normally.

But we have to look a lot further than that in this case, to the objectives of both sides, to declare a winner.

The objective of the Brazilian based VALE was to bring their Sudbury operations in line with their operations in third world developing countries, by dictating rather than negotiating a concessions only contract, and in the process break the workers union.

They clearly failed in that goal. Although it took a year long strike they were finally forced to negotiate and realize that Sudbury is not Brazil or Indonesia. The workers proved their solidarity ending their strike stronger than before and a whole new cadre of union activists were created.

The workers struck for a "fair deal" and negotiated a contract that included some gains and was a far cry from the original dictated terms of the company. The deal included cost of living increases to keep up with inflation as well as additional increases raising their real incomes. It did include some changes to the bonus system but much less than originally proposed, and while it included a new pension system for new hires it was much improved from the original proposal, and there were also improvements to the pension plan for current employees. On top of that was a signing bonus and substantial early retirement incentives to avoid layoffs. It is an agreement that while clearly not a "good deal", under the circumstances can be called a "fair deal".

It was unfortunate that it took a year long strike, with it's subsequent loss of production, to teach VALE that it has to respect their Sudbury workforce and negotiate with them rather than dictate to them, if they expect to operate in this country.

And the workers, and their union, now stronger than ever, have five years to prepare and save up for the next round of negotiations where they can build on the gains in this contract. Hopefully VALE will have learned their lesson and it will not require another year long strike before they start to negotiate. There may even be hope that a new respectful relationship with their Sudbury workers can be built during these five years.

The Fifth Column again congratulates the members of Local 6500 on their solidarity.

An Activist's Viewpoint

Congratulations Brothers and Sisters

Congratulations to Local 6500 on Your Solidarity - One Year Stronger

Sudbury, Port Colborne – United Steelworkers (USW) members in Sudbury and Port Colborne, Ont., voted today to end their year-long strike against mining giant Vale, approving a new collective agreement.

USW Local 6500 members in Sudbury voted 75% in favour of the new contract, while Local 6200 members in Port Colborne ratified the deal by a 74% margin.

“Our members have spoken and I believe everyone respects the decisions they have made in extremely difficult circumstances,” said Wayne Fraser, the USW’s District Director for Ontario and Atlantic Canada.

“We congratulate our members for the determination, spirit and solidarity they demonstrated over the last year in their unprecedented struggle against this huge multinational corporation,” said USW Local 6200 President Wayne Rae.

“We also extend our sincere appreciation to our community for its tremendous support throughout the last year and to the countless people, unions and other groups around the world who demonstrated incredible international solidarity with our members,” said John Fera, President of USW Local 6500.

Highlights of the new collective agreement, which runs until May 31, 2015, include:

- Across-the-board, hourly wage increases with cost-of-living increases each of the five years. Thus, bringing the wage hike to between $2.25 and $2.50 an hour over the life of the agreement.

- Improvements to the existing Defined Benefit Pension Plan increasing to $41,400 per year, with cost-of-living indexing for life, along with life-time health care benefits.

- A Defined Contribution Pension Plan for new hires that provides for Company contributions equal to 8% of employees’ regular basic earnings. As well, employees will be able to make additional contributions ranging from 2% to 6% of regular earnings, with matching contributions from the Company subject to certain limits. The new plan also will include Long Term Disability coverage for employees.

- As a result of sustained, hard-fought negotiations, the nickel bonus program will allow employees to earn up to $15,000 annually in addition to regular earnings.

“For the last 12 months our members have stood together in the face of incredible adversity,” Fraser said. “They demonstrated tremendous character and they can hold their heads high as they return to work.”

“As our brothers in Voisey’s Bay NLF head into negotiations, our members in Sudbury and Port Colborne will remain in solidarity with them as they continue to fight for the fair deal they deserve,” said Fraser.

Should the Right to Strike be Sacrosanct

The labour movement has always held the Right to Strike to be sacrosanct. In reality though, the biggest gains made by workers have been gained during illegal, rather than legal strikes. Indeed it is union solidarity rather than the legal Right to Strike that is key. Workers will always have the effective ability to strike as long as they have solidarity in their ranks.

But that does not mean that strikes are always the best way to settle a dispute that cannot be settled at the bargaining table. As one who worked for, perhaps the most essential of public services, democracy itself, I did not have the Right to Strike. Instead we had compulsory arbitration. On at least one occasion simply serving notice of arbitration brought the employer (House of Commons) back to the table with an offer we could not reject. I have to admit it was somewhat reassuring to not have to worry about going on strike and losing income to settle a bargaining dispute. And, of course, the bottom line was that as long as we had solidarity we always had the effective ability to strike if that became necessary.

The recent TTC strike fiasco is an example of the ineffective use of the legal Right to Strike. The TTC workers are one of those groups of public sector workers that have a fictitious legal Right to Strike. It is often expressed this way by politicians: “we will respect your Right to Strike as long as you do not abuse it”. And by “abuse it” they mean actually “go on strike”.

The TTC strike was a fiasco because the workers went on strike knowing they would be legislated back to work and knowing they did not have the intention, or the solidarity, to continue the strike after they were legislated back to work. So all they accomplished was upsetting the general public. There was obviously something else going on there. The strike was more of an “emotional” response to something going on between workers and management beyond the terms of the proposed contract or something going on between the workers and their union leadership.

The real problem with public sector strikes is that they do not affect the employer’s bottom line. In a private sector strike you shut down production and the employers revenues and profits go down. In a public sector strike you shut down public services and the employers costs go down. There is a real bottom line incentive in that situation for the employer to try to manipulate the union into a strike.

A more effective TTC union response would have been to take the initiative to propose arbitration at the same time they announced the membership had rejected the tentative agreement. This way they could have not only avoided the wrath of the public but gained their support. Instead they called a strike they had no intention or ability to continue, knowing that the end result would be compulsory arbitration.

Why is arbitration not used more often voluntarily in the public sector.

Employers have often expressed a dislike for it because it means turning over “budgetary decisions” to a third party, or so they claim. They also, apparently, fear costlier settlements than those after a strike. It also means they do not have the savings from unpaid wages during a strike to offset wage increases awarded by an arbitrator.

Unions do not like it because of the feeling that the Right to Strike is sacrosanct and that agreeing to arbitration can be seen as a sign of weakness.

Strikes are not always successful. The big problem with public sector strikes is that they affect the public more than the employer and indeed they can save the employer money. Another way that does not upset the public is worth trying. I think public sector unions have a lot to gain by giving arbitration a chance. It does not require giving up your Right to Strike, just not using it for one set of negotiations at a time.

It may very well be that in many cases the employer will reject arbitration. So be it. The employer can then feel the wrath of the public when workers are forced to strike.