Caterpillar is a hugely successful (read profitable) American multinational corporation that recently bought this factory near London, Ontario. It has told the workers that they need to accept a 50% cut in pay, plus big rollbacks in benefits to bring labour costs down to the crappy levels paid to American workers. When the workers refused, the corporation locked them out.
By the way, Caterpillar paid its new CEO $10.4 million in 2010 and its outgoing CEO $22.5 million, and still earned profits of $2.7 billion on revenues of $42.6 billion. So we can definitely see why the company needs the London workers to take a 50 percent pay cut, can’t we?
Watch the video below, prepared obviously from the position favourable to the workers. I’ve tried to find an opinion supporting Caterpillar’s position, but I haven’t had any luck yet. I went to the sources that usually talk about the evils of unions and the workers who support them and the great benefits of unregulated capitalism, including the National Post columnists and the Fraser Institute, for example, but they are strangely quiet on this dispute. Nothen but the sound of crickets. Wonder why? If you find an editorial (or have your own) that explains why it is the workers and their union that are to blame for this dispute, please let me know.
[By the way, employment law students, if Caterpillar was nonunion, could it cut the workers’ wages in half without breaking any law or contract term? The answer is ‘yes’, but do you know how Caterpillar would implement this change?]
For students, Do you support the employer’s position, or the workers? You should have an opinion, and be able to argue in support of it.
