Canadian Law of Work Forum (CLWF)
  • Home
  • About
    • Professor David Doorey
  • Guest Contributors
  • Useful Links
    • Archive
  • Submissions
  • Student Blog Initiative
  • Home
  • About
    • Professor David Doorey
  • Guest Contributors
  • Useful Links
    • Archive
  • Submissions
  • Student Blog Initiative
Canadian Law of Work Forum (CLWF)
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 the Director of the School of HRM at York and Director of Osgoode Hall Law School’s executive LLM Program in Labour and Employment Law and on the Advisory Board of the Osgoode Certificate program in Labour Law. He is a Senior Research Associate at Harvard Law School’s Labor and Worklife Program and a member of the International Advisory Committee on Harvard University’s Clean Slate Project, which is re-imaging labor law for the 21st century

Leave a Comment Cancel Reply

Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I 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

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

October 3, 2018

A Successful Strike Vote is All That Stands...

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

Putin Invites Trump to Moscow for Second Meeting...

August 27, 2018

Subscribe via Email

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

Join 219 other subscribers

Follow Us On Social Media

Twitter

Latest Tweets

CLWFFollow

CLWF
Retweet on TwitterCLWF Retweeted
RSandillRicha Sandill@RSandill·
24 Feb

@SCLSclinic and I were so fortunate to represent this client last year. I am thrilled that this decision brings more clarity for family status accommodations rights amidst a pandemic that has tested parents, caregivers, and families like never before. https://twitter.com/CanLawWorkForum/status/1364605259071561730

CLWF@CanLawWorkForum

New from @RSandill (counsel for applicant), discussing important new "family status" discrimination decision from OHRT:

"Kovintharajah v. Paragon Linen & Laundry: When Failure to Accommodate Child Care Needs is “Family Status” Discrimination"

https://lawofwork.ca/13360-2/

Reply on Twitter 1364627677785821185Retweet on Twitter 13646276777858211851Like on Twitter 13646276777858211853Twitter 1364627677785821185
Retweet on TwitterCLWF Retweeted
TheLawofWorkDavid J. Doorey@TheLawofWork·
24 Feb

Here's my latest in @jacobinmag.

If Ontario's labor laws applied in Alabama, the Amazon vote would have been held months ago so workers could get back to their jobs. Instead, the NLRA permits Amazon to conduct a months' long onslaught of anti-union propaganda. https://twitter.com/jacobinmag/status/1364613560425275392

Jacobin@jacobinmag

Amazon workers in Alabama are voting on whether to unionize, but the company is bombarding them with anti-union propaganda. In Canada, by contrast, votes are held quickly, making it harder for companies to stack the deck — a model that can work in the US. http://jacobinmag.com/2021/02/amazon-alabama-canada-labor-law-union-vote

Reply on Twitter 1364623976174092316Retweet on Twitter 13646239761740923168Like on Twitter 136462397617409231613Twitter 1364623976174092316
CanLawWorkForumCLWF@CanLawWorkForum·
24 Feb

New from @RSandill (counsel for applicant), discussing important new "family status" discrimination decision from OHRT:

"Kovintharajah v. Paragon Linen & Laundry: When Failure to Accommodate Child Care Needs is “Family Status” Discrimination"

https://lawofwork.ca/13360-2/

Reply on Twitter 1364605259071561730Retweet on Twitter 13646052590715617304Like on Twitter 13646052590715617304Twitter 1364605259071561730
Load More...

Categories

  • Alberta
  • Artificial Intelligence
  • Australia
  • British Columbia
  • Charter of Rights and Freedoms
  • Childcare
  • Class Action
  • 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
  • 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.