The Law of Work
  • Home
  • About
  • Professor David Doorey
  • Osgoode Hall LLM
  • Books
  • Guest Contributors
  • Useful Links
    • Archive
  • Home
  • About
  • Professor David Doorey
  • Osgoode Hall LLM
  • Books
  • Guest Contributors
  • Useful Links
    • Archive
The Law of Work
Law of Work Archive

Jim Stanford on Auto Worker Wages

by David Doorey April 20, 2009
written by David Doorey April 20, 2009

It’s hard to make sense of all the mudslinging going on in the media over Canadian auto worker labour costs.  (See this piece, for example, from the Globe over the weekend) A key aspect of the old Statute of Labourers from 14th century Britain was a government fixed cap on wages. The state capped wages during  times of labour shortages to ensure that workers did not use their bargaining power to demand higher wages, which would cut into the employer’s wealth.  Occasionally in the modern era, Canadian governments have imposed wage restraints on public sector wages as part of an inflation-fighting strategy.  But rarely in the modern age of the contract model of employment–at least in North America–have we seen the state and private sector employers come together so ferociously to demand a privately bargained employment contract be ripped up and rewritten to include dramatically lower compensation for the workers. 
One of the early goals of unions was to ‘take labour costs out of competition’.  That meant bargaining similar labour costs at all competitors in an industry and thereby forcing employers to compete on the basis of other factors (quality, design, lower material costs, etc.).  Provincial and Federal governments in Canada today are turning that idea on its head.  They want to take labour costs out of competition by stripping away the benefits the unionized workers have won in bargaining over the past 60 years and set labour costs at the lowest common denominator: those set unilaterally by non-union auto-makers.
The employers and the government say that the cuts are necessary to save the auto industry, or at least to save Ford, GM, and Chrysler.  But how do we know that is the case?  That is, how to we identify the line between cuts in costs that are truly necessary to save a giant corporation, and cuts that are not necessary, but that the employer (and the state) would just like to see happen?  The number being bantered about  by the employers and the government is a $19 per hour cost cut.  But where does that come from?
The state and the employers argue that number is the difference between the cost of unionized labour and non-unionized labour at auto plants in Canada.  So government policy in the auto industry is that labour costs should be set at whatever rate non-union employers decide is appropriate (since non-union workers don’t ‘bargain’ their compensation rates).  I have had difficulty sorting out the rationale for such a policy.  I thought what matters is not labour ‘cost’, but labour ‘productivity’– which considers both the cost of a unit of labour and the marginal productivity of that unit of labour.  By all accounts, CAW members score will on a productivity measure.  And I wasn’t aware that Chrysler and Ford were going down the pipes because of the existence of a few non-union factories scattered about Canada.  I thought the problem was more that autoworkers in the developing countries earn a very small fraction of what both non-union and unionized Canadian workers earn, and the fact that people aren’t buying cars made by Ford, GM, and Chrysler.  So how is paying a unionized Brampton Chrysler worker the same as a non-union Alliston Toyota worker going to save Chrysler? 
I’m no economist though.  But Jim Stanford is.  He is the CAW’s chief economist, and he has addressed these arguments in an interesting piece in the Globe today.  I recognize that Mr. Stanford is not a neutral commentator, that CAW-bashing is a popular past-time right now, and that many people appear to believe that CAW members are paid “too much”, as if there is a proper rate and an improper compensation rate for jobs, and the lowest rate is always the proper one.  But as university educated students, you need to question everything you read (of course, including what you read on my blog!) and analyze arguments.  So, are you persuaded by Mr. Stanford’s arguments here about why the demands for huge labour cost cuts is not economically, but politically motivated?  Or do you agree with the Provincial and Federal governments’ policy of insisting that unionized labour costs be brought down to those of non-unionized workers?

0 comment
0
FacebookTwitterLinkedinEmail
David Doorey

Professor Doorey is an Associate Professor of Work Law and Industrial Relations at York University. He is Academic Director of Osgoode Hall Law School’s executive LLM Program in Labour and Employment Law and a Senior Research Associate at Harvard Law School’s Labor and Worklife Program. Professor Doorey is a graduate of Osgoode Hall Law School (LL.B., Ph.D), London School of Economics (LLM Labour Law), and the University of Toronto (B.A., M.I.R.).

Leave a Comment Cancel Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

previous post
Top 10 SSRN Labour & Employment Law Articles (April 18)
next post
Developments in Employment & Labour Law: 5 Things Every HR Manager Should Know

You may also like

This Blog Entry is About the Lunacy of...

July 21, 2019

A Cross Country Update on the Card-Check versus...

October 3, 2018

The Folly of Not Voting to Strike in...

September 16, 2018

Unifor Posts Photos of Replacement Workers as Gander...

September 10, 2018

A Wrongful Dismissal Case and the Absence of...

August 29, 2018

China Said to Quickly Withdraw Approval for New...

August 27, 2018

The Latest Hot E-Commerce Idea in China: The...

August 27, 2018

The Trump Administration Just Did Something Unambiguously Good...

August 27, 2018

Unstable Situations Require Police In Riot Gear Face...

August 27, 2018

Trump’s War on the Justice System Threatens to...

August 27, 2018

Subscribe via Email

Enter your email address to subscribe and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Join 337 other subscribers

Follow Us On Social Media

Twitter

Latest Tweets

David J. Doorey🇨🇦Follow

Law Prof. Talking #labor & #employment #law #Gig to the masses. Alpaca ❤️ @YorkUniversity @OsgoodeNews @LSELaw @LWPHarvard @Jacobin @OnLaborBlog https://t.co/5V9r8VPHsh

David J. Doorey🇨🇦
TheLawofWorkDavid J. Doorey🇨🇦@TheLawofWork·
16h

A Nationwide Bargaining Unit to Fight Starbucks Is a Moon Shot Worth Trying

My latest on ⁦@jacobin⁩. https://jacobin.com/2022/08/starbucks-service-unions-nlrb-law-centralized-bargaining/

Reply on Twitter 1556339370461786112Retweet on Twitter 15563393704617861122Like on Twitter 155633937046178611211Twitter 1556339370461786112
TheLawofWorkDavid J. Doorey🇨🇦@TheLawofWork·
20h

Luck is part of it for sure. Right time right place. True of a lot of jobs not just academia.

But in my experience sitting on lots of academic hiring committees, people selected have superior CVs. 60 applicants, one position. Not all luck. It’s a very competitive job market.

David Webster@dwebsterhist

I've been hired for 2 tenure track jobs and been on multiple committees, sent in more than 100 job applications, and done multiple interviews. Here is my thread 🛢
of job market advice for early career academics based on decades of experience:

1. Get lucky.

Reply on Twitter 1556285407817506817Retweet on Twitter 1556285407817506817Like on Twitter 15562854078175068171Twitter 1556285407817506817
TheLawofWorkDavid J. Doorey🇨🇦@TheLawofWork·
6 Aug

Sunflowers!

Reply on Twitter 1556032894640037890Retweet on Twitter 1556032894640037890Like on Twitter 15560328946400378905Twitter 1556032894640037890
Load More...

Categories

  • Alberta
  • Artificial Intelligence
  • Australia
  • British Columbia
  • Charter of Rights and Freedoms
  • Childcare
  • Class Action
  • Climate and Just Transition
  • Collective Bargaining
  • Common Law of Employment
  • Comparative Work Law
  • competition law
  • construction
  • COVID-19
  • Diversity
  • Employee Classification
  • Employment Insurance
  • Employment Regulation
  • Europe
  • Financial Industry
  • Fissured Work
  • Freedom of Association
  • frustration of contract
  • Gig Work
  • Health and Safety
  • Health Care
  • Human Rights
  • Immigration
  • Interest Arbitration
  • International Law
  • Labour Arbitration
  • Labour Economics
  • Law of Work Archive
  • Legal Profession
  • Manitoba
  • Migrant Workers
  • Minimum Wage
  • Nova Scotia
  • OLRB
  • Ontario
  • Pension Bankruptcy
  • Privacy
  • Public Sector
  • Quebec
  • Real Life Pleadings
  • Saskatchewan
  • Scholarship
  • Sports Labour
  • Strikes and Lockouts
  • Student Post
  • Supreme Court of Canada
  • technology
  • Transnational Law
  • Uncategorized
  • Unions and Collective Bargaining
  • United States
  • Videos
  • Women and Work
  • Wrongful Dismissal
  • Home
  • About
  • Guest Contributors
Menu
  • Home
  • About
  • Guest Contributors
  • Legal Scholarship
  • Useful Links
  • Archive
Menu
  • Legal Scholarship
  • Useful Links
  • Archive

2020. Canadian Law of Work Forum. All Rights Reserved.