CANADIAN LABOUR MOOSE JAW:

XL BEEF TO BE CLOSED PERMANENTLY:

After over half a year of locking out their employees XL Beef in Moose Jaw Saskatchewan has announced that they plan to close their plant permanently. Molly has blogged before on this lockout and the subsequent boycott of XL Beef products which the Saskatchewan Federation of Labour (reluctantly and tardily) agreed to. The story of the closure is given below in a story from the Moose Jaw radio station CJME. Before getting into that, however, there is a lot of behind the scene details about this story that the reader should be aware of. Unions sources are suspicious that XL planned to close the plant all along. If they didn't it would seem like gross incompetence for them to dither about with temporary closures and lockouts as long as they did. If these plans were in the making for this long the actions of the company in carrying out the lockout were more than slightly deceitful and callous. Anyone who would like to say so to the parent company of XL Beef in Calgary can do so via the following contact info:

Nilsson Brothers Inc.

5101- 11th St. SE

Calgary, Alberta

T2H 1M7

phone 403-258-3233

fax 403-806-3849

Molly thinks that the union suspicions are quite accurate. To see why here are some forgotten facts about the plant. The plant originally opened as a joint private/public partnership in 1995 under the name of 'Western Canadian Beef'. At that time the Crown Investments of the Saskatchewan government owned 40% of the equity for God knows how much of the original investment. Management of the plant was turned over to the private partners whose "efficiency" ran it into the ground so that in 1998 the Crown had to take over the entire operation. The remaining 60% of the operation was purchased for $1.8 million with a government loan guarantee for $3 million for operating expenses.

Over the course of the next two years the provincial government also failed to turn a profit from the plant, and, despite the cyclical nature of the beef business, they were convinced they should unload the facility back to the private sector. In the year 2000 they sold the plant to XL Beef for a cost of $1.868 million plus, of course, a government financed loan at low interest rates of $2.368 million. Note this loan as it is important. The loan was to be paid off over 10 years.

Ten years arrived in 2010 !!! During that time the funds available from the loan were still active despite the fact that XL Beef had been in either shutdown or lockout for the better part of a year. The loan was "presumably" for operating expenses that never existed during the time of shutdown. While XL continued to pay back the government at a low interest rate they were able to apply the funds in more profitable ways all the while. When the loan was finally repaid XL had no reason to not go ahead and do what they intended all along ie close the plant. One has to wonder what uses the loan monies were put to over the years, uses remote from ensuring the profitability of the Moose Jaw plant. You gotta love the company accountants.

Let's examine the sale in 2000. The province bought the remained of the plant in 1998 for $1.8 million and sold it again in 2000 for $1.868 million. Seems about even ? Wrong ! Don't forget that the province already owned 40% of the plant in 1998. Selling both the 60% interest and the already owned 40% would have yielded a selling price of about $3 million to break even. Seems like a great deal for XL, and it was indeed.

Let's travel back to 2000 again. Labour activists in Canada are forever enraptured by the NDP and its supposed virtues. In 2000 the Saskatchewan government was NDP under Roy Romanow. In other words the beloved "left wing" NDP engineered a massive corporate giveaway that any conservative government would have drooled over. Here's the then Minister in charge of the sale John Nilson about the supposed benefits of selling the plant to XL:

"Our goals were to keep the company in business, to keep it in Moose Jaw and to prevent further financial loss for the Province"

It's 2010. The company is no longer in business in Moose Jaw. The province incurred a huge "paper loss" by selling the plant for far less than it was worth at the beginning. Given fluctuating interest rates the province may or may not have 'broken even' over the loan guarantees for the past decade. It depends on the fine details of the loan that are not open to public access.

What should have been done at the very beginning of this disaster ? Libertarian socialists as opposed to the statist socialists of the NDP would have seen the plant as a prime candidate for a "mixed cooperative". This would originally have been a tripartite partnership between the workers involved and their union, Saskatchewan beef producers and the provincial government. The monies needed would have come from exactly the same sources as XL drew upon (unless you believe the fairy tale that XL just so happened to have $1.8 million of 'spare cash' hanging around in their safe) ie loans. There should have been an agreement in place for the workers and the producers to gradually buy back the provincial equity. That sort of thing would have been the only way that it could be assured that the plant would remain to service Saskatchewan producers and consumers.

Is this alternative viable now ? Obviously not. There is a conservative provincial government in place in Regina. The Saskatchewan Federation of Labour was seriously reluctant to launch a simple boycott and did little to promote it after its announcement. The city of Moose Jaw is cash strapped and could hardly step in to replace the province. The union representing the workers the UFCW is far too weak in the province to carry out such a thing on its own. Saskatchewan beef producers are cynical and rightfully so. As a side bar to this story I can remember many years ago when an anarchist comrade from Saskatchewan who was also a cattleman attempted to organize a cooperative marketing group for Saskatchewan beef. Who were the main opponents who killed the idea by vigorous campaigning ? Full points if you guessed the NDP government.

All that Molly can say is that a few conclusions can be drawn from debacles such as this. One is that governments, including so-called 'left' governments are by their very nature treacherous, and that one should never depend on them and always keep them under close scrutiny. Another is that a cooperative alternative should always be first and foremost in examining what can be done about economic questions. The whole idea never occurred to anyone's mind in 2000, but if it had the story would have been quite different today.

Enough of the lecture. Here's the story from Moose Jaw.

CLCLCLCLCL
XL Beef lays off 200, closes its doors permanently in Moose Jaw
Blames market conditions and lack of collective agreement with union

It's been a very unlucky Friday the 13th for employees of XL Beef in Moose Jaw -- almost 200 picketing workers have been permanently laid off.

A letter from XL Beef says the closure is for business and economic reasons, blaming market conditions and that they still don't have a new bargaining agreement with the union that represents employees at the plant.

"We've maintained all along that we're willing to negotiate, that the people go back to work and negotiate a fair and equitable contract," said Norm Neault, president of the United Food and Commercial Workers Union Local 1400.

"I don't think we've been the ones holding this up by stretch of the means. We haven't taken a strike vote and I guess the company, for the lack of a better word, gave up on that.

"They've got their interest in Alberta which is where their negotiating right now and I think that's on their horizon. I think Moose Jaw has been part of their plans for quite some time now."

Nilsson Bros, the parent company of XL Foods out of Alberta, have declined to comment.
The facility was initially shut down last spring due to market conditions. Employees were supposed to be back to work in the fall of 2009. Just days before they were to return, employees were locked out by XL Beef and a labour dispute began. Union members have been walking the picket line ever since.

The letter from XL Beef says the plant will be permanently closed within 90 days.

While the union tries to get all of the loose ends under control, Moose Jaw's mayor is voicing his disappointment in the decision -- saying this is terrible news for the city.

Mayor Glenn Hagel has been in touch with Nilsson Bros, the parent company of XL Foods in Alberta.

"They called to advise that they were making their decision," he said. "They assured me that there wasn't anything that the City of Moose Jaw did or didn't do that influenced their decision and indicated that their decision was final."

If there is anything that the employees can look forward to, it's the opening of the pork plant -- that facility opens in the new year.


With reporting by Chris Rasmussen, CHAB Moose Jaw.

CANADIAN POLITICS-ONTARIO:

STARVING HEALTHCARE-FEEDING CORPORATIONS:

The following opinion piece was written by the President of the Ontario Public Service Employees' Union and published in the online news journal Public Values. I reprint it here if only because there seems to be a need of periodic reminders of how good Canada (and the rest of the civilized world ) has it in terms of health care when compared to the USA. Through the thunder of their (often mindless ) debate down there on the proposals to reform their healthcare system one can discern the almost comical ignorance that many (most ?) Americans have about how their system compares unfavourably with almost all developed and even a few underdeveloped countries. They spend more money and get fewer results. Not the least reason for this inefficiency is that a good proportion of the funds available are skimmed off as profit by the insurance companies, amongst others. Whatever the inefficiencies of other systems at least other countries don't have to apportion money to this class of parasites.

Up here our health care system is under attack and underfunded. Governments, such as those of Ontario, as mentioned in the following article, would much rather spend the money on corporate handouts. Not that our system is perfect by any stretch of the imagination. Molly has expressed her own preferences here at this blog before ie a system of community clinics and mutual cooperative insurance. The beginnings of such a system could easily be initiated even under our present system, with the mutual insurance covering things not presently covered by medicare. The single payer system would have to be retained until such time as non-government methods of social insurance were more fully developed. That process would have to be gradual to avoid unnecessary suffering. In the process of such a "withering away of the state" the first thing to go would obviously be grants to the corporations. The last thing to remain would be corporate taxes and taxes on the wealthy.

Until this process begins, should it ever begin, it can easily be demonstrated that the Rube Goldberg American system is demonstrably inferior to not just that of Canada but also to that of most of the developed world.

Here's the article.

HCHCHCHCHCHCHC

Canada spends one-half per capita on health than US does, yet we are healthier:
Government pleads poverty, yet proceeding with tax cuts to Ontario corporations.
by Warren (Smokey) Thomas
How sustainable is health care? Opponents of Medicare regularly question the public sector's ability to pay the bills as health care creeps up as a share of provincial budgets. New data from the Canadian Institute for Health Information (CIHI) suggests health care costs may be more sustainable than we think.

Affordability is best determined by looking at health costs as a percentage of our overall economy, not by the size of government. The CIHI data suggests that health care costs have escalated roughly in step with the economy, whereas the size of government has been getting dramatically smaller.

Health care accounted for 10 per cent of our economy in 1992 – the last period of recession. In 2009, health care is expected to be 11.9 per cent largely due to a shrinking gross domestic product (GDP), not rising costs. In 2008 it was 10.8 per cent, less than a percentage point above the 1992 levels. This hardly indicates a lack of sustainability.

"As a share of the overall health pie, hospitals have been shrinking. In 1975 hospitals accounted for 44.7 per cent of health expenditures. Today it’s 27.8 per cent."

There is no question we are living longer and better as a result of the investments we have made. From 1996 to 2006 our average life expectancy was extended by three years – the biggest leap in mortality rates since they have been kept.

Federal funding to reduce wait times is having a positive impact, particularly for hip and knee replacements as well as cataracts. This is something Canadians all said we wanted and were willing to pay for.

According to CIHI, money has also been invested in tailored drug therapies, diagnostic technology, training health care professionals and to increase class size in medical and nursing schools. These last investments are necessary if we hope to replace the soon to retire legion of baby boomers serving as professionals within our health system.

While spending as a percentage of our economy has nudged forward over 20 years, it has not been entirely in lock step. In the 1990s governments dramatically slashed funding to health care, leaving present governments with a major infrastructure deficit. It is far more costly to play catch-up than it is to keep the system on an even keel. Finance Minister Dwight Duncan admitted this when speaking to the Ontario Hospital Association Conference last fall.

Hospitals always appear the target of restraint, but are hardly to blame for rising health costs. As a share of the overall health pie, hospitals have been shrinking. In 1975 hospitals accounted for 44.7 per cent of health expenditures. Today it’s 27.8 per cent.

"Total public sector spending used to account for about half the economy. Today it is closer to one third."

In 2009 Canadians are expected to spend $5,452 per capita on health care – both public and private. That’s slightly less than France, Germany, Switzerland and Belgium. It's much less than the United States, which spends almost double per capita and yet leaves 45 million Americans uninsured and many more underinsured. On almost every objective measure, Canadians do better with their health than Americans, from infant mortality to our overall longevity.

In the past year there has been an attempt to divide the progressive community by portraying health care as an insatiable monster crowding out education, housing, transportation and even poverty reduction.

The McGuinty government continues to shrink the pie and is happy to see us all fighting over the scraps. Total public sector spending used to account for about half the economy. Today it is closer to one third.

While the government cries poor, it is stampeding ahead with a series of tax cuts, including a $5 billion reduction to Ontario corporations.

We need to defend all our social services, including health care. When we start pitting our sectors against each other, we all lose.
In solidarity,


Warren (Smokey) Thomas,

President
Links and sources Ontario Public Service Employees Union (OPSEU) site

CANADIAN BUSINESS/CANADIAN POLITICS:

DOGGIE DOO ON MANITOBA:

This matter has been a long running item here at Molly's Blog ie the construction of the new Greyhound Terminal way out west by Winnipeg's Airport, a far distance from the old downtown location, one that was, of course far more convenient for the average low income Greyhound customer. Well the deal was over and done in mid-August to the tune of (amounts are somewhat uncertain) about $6.3 million dollars worth of construction on the part of the Winnipeg Airport Authority (read "the taxpayer"). Greyhound Canada was to lease the facilities on a 40 year term. Using Molly's little kitty cat calculator this would have resulted in a yearly payment of about $157,500 and a monthly payment of $13,125. Leaving aside the possibility of any "interest" on this lease/loan (a very likely possibility-but the public will never know) which would increase the cost and also assuming that Greyhound has no cargo business this would leave a cost recovery of $13.13 per travel customer assuming only 1000 passengers per month. On what is still probably an underestimate of 10,000 passengers per month this equals a cost recovery of about $1.31 per customer. To say the least even the monthly figure of $13,125 would probably be in the running for the cheapest commercial real estate rate anywhere in the developed world. In actual fact to get the same square footage for an equivalent price you would probably have to go to one of the goat markets in a minor city in Outer Mongolia, and even there it would be cheap. It was a sweet deal.

But some people are just never satisfied. Today's news is that the Dog has threatened to close down all service in Manitoba and North West Ontario unless government coughs up a new $12 million subsidy for this year. Our dearly beloved federal government responded with such alacrity that one would be quite gullible to assume that they were not forewarned. What they said was that they were against the blackmail of provincial governments by Greyhound. Translated into English this says simply and plainly, "kiss my ass, I'm not paying a penny for it". This was directed much more to the provincial (and territorial as the Dog has threatened to "review" their service in Saskatchewan, Alberta, BC, the Yukon and the NWT as well, and the Dog is much more essential in the North than down here) governments than to Greyhound. The province has yet to respond, perhaps because, unlike the federal Conservatives, they only got the news via the TV or radio. Even the Winnipeg Airport Authority was slow off the mark, claiming that they were only informed this morning and that they were assured by Greyhound that the cargo aspect of the business would continue. Maybe yes and maybe no, but only "Sneaky Stevie" and major contributors to the Conservative Party (whoever "they" may be) know for sure.

Here's the bare bones story from the CBC., along with some comments that they have gathered.

CPCPCPCPCPCPCP
Greyhound cuts rile some, alarm others:

(But nobody thinks it is a good idea-Molly )
Greyhound Canada said Thursday that unless it receives $15 million in government aid, it will shut down bus service in Manitoba and northwest Ontario over the next months, and look at closing transit lines in across the West and North.Residents of many communities across Canada rely on Greyhound for long-distance transport. (CBC)

The company says government rules force it to operate unprofitable rural routes that have put it in "dire" financial straits, but politicians called the Greyhound announcement a ploy to get taxpayer subsidies.

Greyhound operates in 700 communities across the country, in nearly every province and territory. In many of those area, the bus line is the principal provider of long-distance transportation.

Politicians, community leaders and travellers reacted with a mix of dismay and dismissal to Thursday's news. Here's what some of them had to say.
Bob Hykaway, vice-president, Amalgamated Transit Union, Calgary
Should bus service be discontinued in the Northwest Territories and the Yukon, it could have major impacts on people living there, said Bob Hykaway, a Calgary-based vice-president with the Amalgamated Transit Union, which represents Greyhound Canada drivers.

"For the people up in the North — people using the [bus route] for medical runs, their drugs and things like that — this is going to stop, and that's a big impact. That's very severe for us," he said.

Hykaway said the union is talking with territorial ministers and deputy ministers on the issue.
"They're trying to get together, they're talking to the federal government to try and do something," he said.
Sam Nabi, university student, Winnipeg
"It's the cheapest option a lot of the time," Sam Nabi, a 19-year-old university student, said in Winnipeg of riding the bus. "I'm familiar with this system now that I've been using it for a while. It's usually my go-to option."

Nabi is from Whitby, Ont., and was making his way back home on Greyhound after spending the summer in Alberta.

"I am very surprised. I thought it was always there. There are signs in some of the terminals saying, 'Greyhound here for 75 years,' and I don't know what other options there would be."
Governments at all levels should do whatever they can to stop the bus line from pulling out, he said.

"It should be a priority. If the federal government needs to take ownership of Greyhound to keep it alive, then I think that's totally appropriate."
Jim Bradley, transportation minister, Ontario
"The motor coach industry in Ontario is regulated by the Highway Transportation Board under the Private Vehicles Act," Ontario Transport Minister Jim Bradley said in a perfunctory statement issued Thursday afternoon. "Under existing legislation, to discontinue service, Greyhound must comply with the requirements under the PVA.

"Greyhound has fulfilled its obligations under the PVA to provide advance notice of service discontinuance. We recognize the current economic downturn has impacted passenger volumes on many services offered by public transportation operators.

"Greyhound has advised that it is working with other companies to provide replacement services. We are hopeful that another private sector carrier will seek the opportunity to provide bus service in this corridor."
Glenn Andersen, mayor of St. Paul, Alta.
Many residents of St. Paul, Alta., a community of 5,400 people, rely on the Greyhound bus for trips to Edmonton, 200 kilometres to the southwest, Mayor Glenn Andersen said.

"A lot of people do. The ones that can't afford a vehicle, single people or somebody who just doesn't drive. They don't drive to the city, they take the Greyhound," he said Thursday. "And a lot of shipping from Greyhound through from larger centres to St. Paul. comes that way, as a more economical way of shipping, and that would be devastating to St Paul.

"Anytime you lose something, that's not good for your community and that would be a loss to not only to St Paul but the whole northeast region."
Lionel Cloutier, mayor of Ignace, Ont.
Lionel Cloutier, mayor of Ignace — a town of about 1,400 people 250 kilometres northwest of Thunder Bay — said the route closures are "very distressing, very bad news for northwestern Ontario."

"A lot of people rely on the Greyhound bus for not just transportation, but also for parts and emergency stuff that we need," he said.
John Baird, federal transport minister
"Greyhound is a Texas-based multinational. Their actions are heavy-handed and clearly an attempt to bully the provinces of Manitoba and Ontario," federal Transport Minister John Baird said in a media scrum. "They're seeking tens of billions of dollars of taxpayers money as a subsidy."

Baird said the regulatory problems are a provincial issue.

"The [federal] government has been out of this for 50 years," he said. "And we've certainly got our hands full with aviation and with Via [Rail]."
Stuart Kendrick, senior vice-president, Greyhound Canada
"The decision to cease our operations in northwestern Ontario and Manitoba was a very difficult one. We have repeatedly asked the federal and provincial governments to change the existing legislative and regulatory regimes that govern intercity bus operations," Stuart Kendrick, senior vice-president of Greyhound Canada, said in a statement Thursday.

"Our financial situation is dire and we are no longer in a position to absorb losses that are almost solely attributable to government policies."

Kendrick said Greyhound is forced to operate unprofitable routes to remote communities and to subsidize those routes with income from profitable lines and the company's parcel delivery service.

"Despite numerous attempts over the years to adjust this business model in order to gain a profitable footing, Greyhound Canada has now run out of options," Kendrick said.
Bill Swan and Jesse House, passengers, Edmonton
In Edmonton, passenger Bill Swan said his daughter travels frequently to the city from northern Alberta.

"Greyhound is basically the only way for people to get from town to town," he said.

Jesse House, a kidney transplant patient, said he uses the bus to get to medical appointments from Grande Prairie, Alta. He pays $79 for the bus trip, but a plane ride would cost almost $500.
"The bus is the only affordable way for me to come for my medical appointments. I can't drive because of my condition.

CPCPCPCPCPCPCP

Newcomers to this blog and even many "old timers" may be unaware of what this blog actually promotes. I've seen this blog described as various different things ie a "unionist blog", an anarcho-syndicalist blog", a "working class blog", a "platformist fellow traveller blog" amongst other things. All of these are correct as far as they go. What this blog actually is, however, is an anarchist blog in a specific tradition that is part of anarchism ie that tradition that is not revolutionist but rather sees the potential for a more free and more equal society as always present in any society and sees the opportunity to gain such things as always possible. this tradition began with Proudhon and those French unionists who took his ideas as an inspiration. Its more modern incarnations have been expressed by such people as Paul Goodman in the USA and Colin Ward in Great Britain. In an "expansive" definition of this tradition one could say that the largest anarcho-syndicalist organization in the world today, the Spanish CGT, has pretty well come over to this idea.

Look back in this blog as to "anarchism" to see what I mean or travel forward in the future in the time left to Molly. To the non-anarchist readers of this blog (the vast majority) what I hope to present is an alternative way of seeing the word "anarchism" that is not so demanding of change, but is also open to the sort of change that serves their immediate interests. Hence my own 'Utopian Essay(s) and Practical Proposal(s)' (with apologies to the original essay by Paul Goodman).

Let's begin with an obvious statement. Bus service to rural Manitoba (and Northwest Ontario) is an obvious essential public service. There are communities in rural Manitoba where 40% of the population consists of senior citizens who are often unable to afford any other transportation than the bus, and who are absolutely dependent on the bus service for the delivery of medications. We will leave aside, for the moment, (even if we shouldn't) the dependence of many sectors of the rural economy on the bus delivery of various goods. The latter is an "economic emergency". The former is a "public health emergency", and "essential services legislation" has been evoked for far less in the past across the country. If you want a "counter threat" to that of Greyhound this is it. The buses will run just as regularly under an emergency services order, with the government both paying the bus drivers and taking the fares. The buses, of course, would be deemed "essential" under such orders in council.

That is "stage one". Make a counter threat that Greyhound would have a hard time ignoring. The long term solution- get rid of the bastards. While Greyhound is hardly the only bus service operating in either Manitoba or Northwest Ontario(see THIS LINK for a list of others operating in Manitoba). What is unique about Greyhound is that they have been granted a monopoly over certain routes under the expectation that they would operate other routes for the public good. Well they obviously want to rat on this agreement, and by implication their sweetheart deal about their new terminal is also null and void. Turn that matter over to the provincial lawyers to argue the case in court for the next ten years. In the interum continue the bus service under essential services legislation. Unlike most (all ?) situations where such legislation is evoked the Greyhound union would be likely quite agreeable to such a thing. If anything there would be better public service.

OK, that's the immediate stabilization. Molly, however, is not of the opinion that a government utility is the best way to operate anything (that's why I am a "libertarian" socialist rather than a straight "socialist"), let alone a bus service. While Greyhound and the provinces argue the matter in the courts the first thing that Manitoba and Ontario should do is repeal any legislation that gives any company any monopoly over any route.

That is clearing the decks, a minimal reform. Some are of the opinion that that would be sufficient, and perhaps it would be to "get the attention" of Greyhound. Free market ideologues are of the opinion that simply removing the Dog's monopoly would be enough to stimulate enough competition on the part of "small bus companies" to replace the services that Greyhound presently provides. Maybe so, but a) you can't depend on it and b) this is a very long term solution. The more immediate solution would be to apply the $15 million dollar subsidy that Greyhound is demanding for one year as "seed money" for "municipal cooperatives" run by RMs along each present line that Greyhound runs. We are probably taking at least a year to get the agreement off various RMs along various routes. In the interum the bus service would be run under emergency legislation. Is the cooperative form the best one for the final management ? Quite frankly I hope so, and I can give the example of dozens of rural rail lines that are now being operated in western Canada under farmers' coops when the rail companies decided to abandon the lines. Is this the best model for rural bus lines where communities d9iffer greatly in size (and therefore cost and need) ? I would prefer a co-op model, but a simple municipal subscription company would be an obvious improvement over what we have today.

There it is. There is a simple and achievable way for people here in Western Canada (and Northwest Ontario) to preserve what is very much an essential service. It is a way that doesn't depend on giving more money to a corporation that has already shown its bad faith,and it also a way that would eventually lead to more local control (via RM meetings) over an essential service. All of this is within the realm of possibility without any great change in our political system. All that it requires is public will.

CANADIAN LABOUR-SOUTHERN ONTARIO:

CIVIC WORKER STRIKES IN ONTARIO:

The strike of city workers in Windsor Ontario has now now entered the realm of "months" while that of city workers in Toronto is working towards the one month post. The provincial government of Ontario has been reluctant to legislate the workers involved back to work. Molly suspects that this is because, in a climate of economic crisis, the province hopes that the end result of the strike will be the "breaking" of the unions involved. Perhaps the conservative provincial government is more realistic than the so-called "leftist" administration of Toronto who no doubt would welcome any face saving intervention from the provincial government.

As these strikes drag on and more are threatened (see below) Molly's main question is how can the workers involved bring the situation to a successful conclusion, and do more "radical" tactics have to be employed. Molly is a "libertarian socialist". What that means in plain English is that she believe that the majority of the economy should be "socialized", not by nationalization, but rather by converting it to producers' cooperatives. I have often harped on this blog about the utility of "workplace occupations", and there is little doubt that these tactics are much more effective than traditional picketing and strike action in bringing the bosses to heel. can these be used in a 'public service' situation ? I'm agnostic about this, but it is something to consider. On a greater note, is it possible that the public services of various cities could be better delivered by self-managed workers' cooperatives ? Could garbage collection, for instance, be better managed by a cooperative in which the workers are the "shareholders", rather than having it managed either as a government enterprise or a private business ? It may be a thought to consider as these strikes drag on and on.

Could a producers' cooperative be "competitive" with private enterprise. First of all it would be better for the consumer than a government monopoly simply because it would automatically shed hugely expensive layers of bureaucracy. Its costs would also be transparent, unlike present municipal operations. I personally believe that, in the end, it would also be competitive vis-a-vis private contractors because there would be no need to produce profit for non-workers.

Is such a "solution" in the interests of the workers involved. I am not too sure of this. Setting out on your own as a cooperative involves the same sort of willingness to take risks as is involved in setting out in business on your own. Could the benefits so far gained from previous city contracts be preserved ? Maybe yes. Maybe no. The balance of whether taking such a risk is worthwhile depends upon just how savage the city administrations want to be. What Molly suggests, without demanding any ideological certainty from the people involved, is that the workers in these situations do some calculations as to the costs and benefits of trying something quite different. Not being immediately involved it is hard for me to suggest any firm way to go. All that i suggest is that there is an alternative to simply holding out on strike. Should people want to "take the risk" the FIRST action would be workplace occupations.

OK, that's the ideological prologue. Here's the news from the Canadian Union of Public Employees (CUPE) about the latest offer from Windsor city workers to resolve the dispute in their city.

CLCLCLCLCLCLCL

CUPE puts settlement to City of Windsor:
Negotiations between locals 82 and 543 of the Canadian Union of Public Employees (CUPE) and the City of Windsor have been adjourned today.

The union has put forward a proposal to resolve the labor dispute and have requested the employer bargaining committee to bring the proposal for settlement to City council members.
No details of the proposal will be released by either party at this time.

CUPE local 82, representing outside workers, have been on strike since Wednesday, April 15th. Their colleagues of local 543, the inside workers, joined the picket line on Saturday, April 18th.

CLCLCLCLCLCLCL

The antagonism between city administrations and their workers is hardly confined to the cities-Toronto and Windsor- in which there are active strikes. Many other cities, in Ontario and elsewhere are presently in conflict with their workers, either in contract negotiations or in a "propaganda war". The claims of city adminstrations actually have very little to do with the present financial crisis. In some cases, such as here in Winnipeg, they are the long standing result of a "tax freeze". In some cases there is no "crisis whatsoever. In some the "crisis" is the result of civic give-aways to private interests In others there is no "crisis" to speak of, and the "crisis" is only a bargaining excuse. Where there is not a strike situation Molly's "radical remedy" of a producer cooperative obviously has less appeal- to say the least. I would, however, like to implant this idea as an alternative to consider.

Here's another story from CUPE about yet another city in southern Ontario where the city is trying to download a real or fictitious crisis onto its workers.

CLCLCLCLCLCLCL

Open letter to the Mayor and Council of the City of Brantford:

Dear Mayor Hancock and Councillors Littell, Kinneman, Sless, Bucci, McCreary, Martin, Carpenter, Calnan, Bradford and Ceschi-Smith:

We are writing on behalf of over 500 Brantford city workers who provide vital public services to the residents of our city.

The unions representing public works, housing, welfare, libraries, water and hydro, city transportation and parks and recreation workers have formed a Labour Coalition to stand up to the City’s public positions against unionized workers and their collective agreements.

Collectively we are requesting that city leaders stop using the recession to target workers and our collective agreements. As city workers and long-time residents of our community, we are happy to work with senior elected officials and management to overcome this global economic downturn. But we will not participate in any actions that undermine the collective bargaining process including the City’s request to open up existing collective agreements.

We are fully aware of the global economic downturn that is affecting everyone. We remind you this global recession was not caused by workers. We expect the leaders of this city to show leadership and work with us to find innovative ways to overcome this downturn. Targeting unionized workers and undermining the collective bargaining process is simply a non starter and could set back labour relations for years to come.

As city workers and full-time residents of our community we know intimately the strength, vibrancy and the current and potential growth of City of Brantford. So it came as a surprise and disappointment when senior management shared the City’s ‘Economic Position and Budget Direction’ report with us.

We question the ‘doom and gloom’ picture the report tries to portray. This predominantly negative report seems to be missing important sections including current stimulus activities (such as the approved federal stimulus plan for the re-build of the Wayne Gretzky Arena and others that create local jobs) and a pro-active strategy by the City to combat this economic downturn. Surely a report of this nature should show a full and complete picture including jobs created in growth sectors and what the leaders plan to do to attract new investment to lead us out of this economic wilderness.

As public servants, we are happy to help senior leaders and work with management to outline the current growth in our diversified economy (a pro-active diversification strategy adopted by the City to combat the recession from the early 90’s) that is not identified in the report and help you find savings including bringing back many public services that have been contracted out to private companies that cost more to the city. This is an opportunity to bring these contracted services in-house so the city can have cost savings with more control and greater accountability over public services.

As requested by the City, we are in the process of identifying savings that will help the city finances and will be happy to share this with you once our report is completed.

In closing, this coalition is urging elected officials and senior management to work respectfully with city workers. As city workers begin negotiations on Monday, July 13, 2009 we expect a fair bargaining process that will lead us to fair collective settlements.

Working together, like we have done with our coalition, is the positive solution to move the City of Brantford forward.
Respectfully,
The City of Brantford Labour Coalition
Phil Hotte, President of Amalgamated Transit Union 685

Ryan Hantz, Vice-President of International Brotherhood of Electrical (Power) 636

John Longo, President of International Brotherhood of Electrical (Water) 636

Jeff Van Wyk, President of CUPE 181

Jane Davidson, City Hall Unit Chair of CUPE 181

Angelo Mancini, Parks, Cemeteries and Recreation Unit Chair of CUPE 181

Glen Quackenbush, Public Works Unit Chair of CUPE 181

Karen Gamble, Library Unit Chair of CUPE 181

Shawn MacKeigan, Ontario Works Brant Unit Chair of CUPE 181

Anne Derosse, Housing Unit Chair of CUPE 181
cope491

INTERNATIONAL POLITICS:

MUTUALIZE THE BANKS ?-YES!:

A tip of the Molly hat to Larry Gambone of the Porkupine Blog for bring this to my attention. It seems that in Britain there is a move afoot to "remutualize" at least two of the failed banks. To say the least this is a positive development. Mutuals, known in this country as credit unions, are naturally more cautious than the free wheeling banks that led the world into the present economic crisis. They provide a natural barrier against the sort of speculation whose results we are seeing today. In addition, and perhaps most importantly, they provide a non-governmental source of credit that would be available to the many (and probably many more in the future) enterprises that are presently in dispute, often with workers' occupations of the facilities. Mutuals/credit unions could be a source of credit for such enterprises if their workers wish to turn them into producers' cooperatives. They would provide a third alternative different from either waiting for a private "white knight" or calling for nationalization of the workplace in question. The agreements taken up with such mutuals leave the actual workplace free to develop true workers' self-management, something that neither private buyouts nor nationalization does.

Yes, the British initiative is small, but I hope it comes about and that it is imitated on a larger scale worldwide. Here's the news from the pages of the British newspaper The Guardian.

...........................

Turn failed banks back into mutuals, Labour told:
Rock and B&B should be restored to savers
Pressure is mounting for the government to explore ways to remutualise Northern Rock and Bradford & Bingley, nationalised after the shares crashed amid fears that they could collapse amid the world financial crisis. Both companies were mutuals before becoming stockmarket-listed banks in the 1990s.

Labour MPs are pushing for the government to expand the role of mutuals, which are owned by depositors and borrowers. They do not have shareholders who may be more interested in diverting profit to bolster dividends than getting customers a better deal.

Mutually owned building societies are widely viewed as more cautious than banks, which have been accused of irresponsible lending during the boom. Societies are barred from funding more than half their mortgages from the wholesale money markets, which have frozen up in the wake of the credit crunch.

One option would be to remutualise Northern Rock and B&B, both of which have been rescued by the taxpayer at a huge cost, although part of B&B was acquired by Spanish bank Santander. The principle of remutualisation is supported by the Co-operative party which sponsors 29 Labour MPs, including schools secretary Ed Balls.

The Co-op's general secretary Michael Stephenson said: "The government could consolidate Northern Rock and its holding into one institution; when all debts are paid back, the institution could be converted into a building society. Alternatively, government could give existing financial mutuals (such as Nationwide) the right of first refusal when it decides to put the institutions it nationalised up for sale."

John McFall, Labour chairman of the Treasury select committee and a Co-op sponsored MP, says: "If ever there was a time for an expanded mutual sector, it's now. We desperately need to restore faith in financial services in this country." Although he stopped short of calling for a firm commitment to remutualise the Rock and B&B, he told the Observer that the idea was "a fertile area for debate".

He was backed by Mark Lazarowicz, Labour MP for Edinburgh North and Leith, who says: "This is an issue that is worth airing at a time when confidence in the banks is at an all-time low."
Martin Weale, director of the National Institute of Social and Economic Research, said remutualising Northern Rock and B&B could be a relatively simple, albeit lengthy, process with money owed to the taxpayer repaid by borrowers who redeem their debts over time. New "membership" shares could be issued to depositor/members, he said.

It emerged this weekend that the Building Societies Association is to commission academic research into how the mutual sector could be expanded in Britain, after banks that ditched mutuality in favour of plc status have either been nationalised or taken over in "mercy killings" by rival institutions. They include HBOS, which has been merged with Lloyds TSB, and Alliance & Leicester, which was bought by Santander.

Stephenson said: "When the last Conservative government encouraged building societies to demutualise, it plundered generations of assets from mutual societies, replacing prudent mortgage providers with some of the worst culprits of casino capitalism."

ECONOMIC CRISIS:

ANARCHIST SOLUTIONS TO THE ECONOMIC CRISIS:

It is presumed, in "respectable discourse", that the "solution" to our present economic crisis is to throw huge wads of government money at it...without altering the fundamental economic system that led to the present state of affairs. This "solution" has become the common assumption amongst both the formerly tight-fisted right as well as the long standing spendthrift left. How well it will succeed is unknown. What is known is that the underlying causes of the crisis will remain to operate another day. Anarchists propose an overhaul of the economic and political system, one that returns power, both economic and political, to the average worker and citizen.

One method towards this goal is to turn enterprises into cooperatives. This stands as a more effective way than corporate bailouts to produce employment in an economic downturn. It is also a localization of the economy, something that would cushion local enterprise against the vagaries of international finance. It is true socialization, free of the bureaucracy and inefficiency of the false socialization of nationalization (which turns an enterprise over to new ruling class of managers).

Here is one anarchist proposal, originally from the pages of Freedom, the world's oldest anarchist paper. It comes to the internet via the LibCom website.

..............................

Bailouts or co-operatives?:
As half of a Freedom newspaper feature on responses to the credit crunch, Iain McKay argues for the latter. Read the other half, Co-ops or conflicts?

As capitalism goes into crisis (again), there have been bailouts of the financial sector as well as calls for the bailing out of certain industries. There are many reasons for rejecting this, but the problem is that their workers will be harmed by this. As such, I think it is wise for anarchists to have some practical suggestion on what to do – beyond, of course, calls for social revolution.

May I suggest that in return for any bailouts, the company is turned into a co-operative? This is a libertarian alternative to just throwing money at capitalists or nationalising workplaces.
Proudhon argued in 1848 he

“did not want to see the State confiscate the mines, canals and railways; that
would add to monarchy, and more wage slavery. We want the mines, canals,
railways handed over to democratically organised workers' association..”

In his classic work, The General Idea of the Revolution, he made a similar suggestion as part of his critique of capitalism and he influenced the Communards, who turned empty workplaces into co-operatives.

In 1912, Kropotkin argued along similar lines. He noted that the “State phases which we are traversing now seem to be unavoidable.” However, aiding “the Labour Unions to enter into a temporary possession of the industrial concerns” anarchists would provide “an effective means to check the State Nationalisation.” So there is an anarchist tradition of making this kind of demand.

What of the obvious objection, namely that this is not socialism and just “worker capitalism.”
Yes, it is not socialism – but it contains more elements of socialism than the alternatives of bailouts or nationalisation. It is a suggestion that could be applied in the here and now, where a social revolution is currently unlikely. If our position is one of revolutionary purity then it will be unlikely that anyone will pay much attention to us and if a revolt does break out then our influence will be smaller than it could be if we addressed social issues today.

If done in the right way, such activity can be used to get us closer to our immediate aim – a libertarian social movement which uses direct action and solidarity to change society for the better.

What of the notion it is “worker capitalism”? This is confused. It is not capitalist because workers own and control their own means of production. If quoting Engels is not too out of place, the
“

object of production – to produce commodities – does not import to the
instrument the character of capital” for the “production of commodities is one
of the preconditions for the existence of capital... as long as the producer
sells only what he himself produces, he is not a capitalist; he becomes so only
from the moment he makes use of his instrument to exploit the wage labour of
others.”

So workers’ associations are not capitalist, as Marx also made clear.

This is Proudhon’s distinction between property and possession and he placed workers’ associations at the heart of his anarchism, considering them as “a protest against the wage system” and a “denial of the rule of capitalists.” As long as these associations remained democratic (i.e., all people who work there are members) then this is a socialisation of the means of life (albeit, currently within capitalism). The key to understanding socialisation is to remember that it is fundamentally about access, that every one has the same rights to the means of life as everyone else.

This was Proudhon’s position, that “every individual employed in the association... has an undivided share in the property of the company”, has “the right to fill any position, of any grade, in the company, according to the suitability of sex, age, skill, and length of employment” and that “all positions are elective, and the by-laws subject to the approval of the members.” Bakunin was also a firm supporter of cooperatives, as was Kropotkin – although both were clear about their limitations.

This should be the criteria for any bailouts suggested now – the turning of the company into a co-operative which is run by its members and which any new workers are automatically members with the same rights as others.

Of course, it is unlikely that any government will agree to such a socialisation of companies. Unless pressurised from below, they will pick bailouts or (part/full) nationalisation in order to keep capitalism going. If ignored then people should simply socialise their workplaces themselves by occupying and running them directly. Nor should this be limited to simply those firms seeking bailouts. All workplaces in danger of being closed should be occupied – which will hopefully inspire all workers to do the same.

This support for co-operatives should be seen as a practical response to current events, a means of spreading the anarchist message and getting people to act for themselves. At the very least, it helps people who are suffering from the crisis while, at the same time, showing that another world is possible. And it is doubtful that the people whose jobs and communities are on the line because of the decisions of their bosses can make any more of a mess than has already been inflicted on them!

But this is a short-term libertarian solution to the crisis, one that can be used to help create something better. Capitalism has failed. It is time to give economic liberty a go!

...........................

As regular readers of this blog may surmise I am definitely in favour of the above, but just for the sake of fairness and counterpoint here is another opinion, once more from the pages of Freedom via the Libcom site.

..........................

Co-ops or conflicts?:
As half of a Freedom newspaper feature on responses to the credit crunch, Joseph Kay argues for the latter. Read the other half, Bailouts or co-operatives?

Nationalisation has long been a staple demand of the left, but now that an unprecedented nationalisation of the banking system has failed to lead to socialism, anarchist arguments that state control offers nothing to the working class would appear to have been vindicated.

This creates an opportunity to put forward anarchist ideas not as a critical comment on the left, but as proposals in their own right. Against the demand for nationalisation of troubled firms, many have raised the demand for workers control. This demand is no less problematic, for two reasons.

Firstly, and not insignificantly, we are in no position to demand anything. As a tiny minority in the class, our ‘calls’ for this or that are impotent cries. Nationalisation of the banks didn’t happen because MPs heeded the calls of various Trotskyist groups, but because of a material need to prevent a banking collapse and the consequent economic collapse, falling of profits and danger of social unrest this would entail.

The only way our demands can become a necessity for capital to follow is if they are backed by a class movement capable of imposing them. To call for this or that in the absence of such class power is to get ahead of ourselves; there are more pressing matters at hand. We will return to this in a moment.

The second problem is on a more fundamental level. While many are aware that workers’ control under capitalism is simply self-managed exploitation, the demand is still often raised as a sort of intermediate, ‘realistic’ demand short of revolution. However like nationalisation, workers’ control is not a demand based on our concrete material needs as a class, it is about how capital should be managed.

Capital cannot be managed in our interests, so it is pointless to try. Instead we have to make concrete material demands; no to job losses, wage cuts, public service cuts and evictions; and jumping further ahead of ourselves, for wage increases, shorter hours for no loss of pay, improved public services etc.

Self-managed exploitation is not just a neat turn of phrase, it is a recognition of how capital rules social life. It does this both vertically through the person of the boss, and horizontally, through market forces. Many anarchists focus mainly on the vertical rule of workplace hierarchy, and so see workers’ control as a stepping stone towards libertarian communism.

However, it’s not a stepping stone, but a cul-de-sac. For example, I work in financial services. As you would expect during a financial crisis, we’re feeling the squeeze. There have been redundancies, and the ‘lucky’ survivors are being made to work harder and longer to make up. If we were to turn it into a co-op, those same market forces causing my boss to make cuts would still be there, but we would have nobody to say no too when under pressure to increase the rate of exploitation to survive in a hostile market.

Of course, using the director’s former salaries we might be able to make less redundancies or improve wages. But if the firm has the resources to do this, and we would only be able to create a co-op with sufficiently strong class struggle to force expropriation of the bosses, we should simply demand the concrete material things we want – in this case job security and improved conditions – not demand how capital should be managed to meet our actual needs.

Success in establishing a co-op is success in swapping one form of alienation for another, proletarian for petit-bourgeois. But there is a reason workers are a potentially revolutionary class and small business people are not: class antagonism. When capital makes demands of bosses via market forces, they have to impose them on workers, and workers can resist. Workers’ needs are in direct contradiction to the needs of capital accumulation.

However, if we become our own boss, we have no-one to refuse and the needs of capital appear as the natural imperative of market forces. Class struggle – and with it the potential for revolutionary change – is short-circuited. Ends are made of means, some means get us closer to what we want, others make it more remote and finally destroy its possibility.

So what is a libertarian communist response to the crisis? Communist demands are concrete, material demands reflecting our needs as workers. To be in a position to make these demands, we need to have a level of working class power and confidence that is presently lacking. Therefore our activity should be aimed at increasing the confidence, power and combativity of the wider class.

The Tea Break workers’ bulletin is one such project to this end, it advocates libertarian communist tactics to achieve concrete material gains. These tactics are the advocacy of collective action, for militant workers to network with one another online or face to face, for mass meetings including all workers regardless of union membership to control the struggle (excluding managers and scabs of course), and for links to be made between workers divided by workplace, sector, union, agency/permanent contracts and the manifold other divisions currently present (nationality, gender…).

As a concrete project aimed at spreading libertarian communist tactics and demands and increasing the power and confidence of the class, it is at least a small but definite step in the right direction.

..........................

MOLLY NOTES:

As I said above I definitely favour the tactics laid out in the first essay above. That being said there are a few obvious points to be made.

1)The author of the second essay is probably aware that quite often his "concrete demands" are just as unrealistic as the demand for a worker cooperative in a certain enterprise. They are even more so in the unfortunately all to frequent occurrence where a company is determined to shut a facility down out of economic necessity- something that does occur. Actually it is quite common.

2)There is no either/or to this matter. Mutualists, who are the greatest supporters of producers' co-ops, may also (Almost always are actually) be in favour of militant union demands in most labour/management conflicts. The goal of eventually converting an enterprise to a self-managed one does not exclude ordinary union tactics to win the best deal possible for the members in a given situation. Mutualists would hardly disagree with such militancy. It's just that they wouldn't see it as sufficient in itself.

3)Which brings us to the fact that the "alternative" offered by the author of the second essay lacks even the slightest suggestion of how demands for "more and more" translate into a social transformation. This is the same sort of "alternative" as was offered by the AFL in its founding years as an "alternative" to the demands of more radical labour associations. It's all well and good to say that pressure should be applied to make any demands put forward by labour as demanding as possible. It's quite another to claim that this is some sort of thing that will automatically translate into some "alternative to capitalism".

Maybe such a social transformation is an unachievable goal. The followers of J. W. Machajski's "Workers Conspiracy" certainly argued something very close to this over a century ago. This political trend, however, was as hostile to the "revolutionaries" as the AFL was, and saw them much more clearly as an aspiring ruling class. Maybe the truth lies in between the confidence of the revolutionaries and the skepticism of those who see the power hunger in their eyes. Maybe steps toward such a transformation are the best way to proceed, allowing things to be worked out in practice where ideological plans fall short.

4) I do notice that the author of the second essay berates the first for putting forth "demands" that have to be "backed by a class movement capable of imposing them". In a quite honest admission later in the essay he says that for his "concrete demands" to be realized "we need a level of working class power and confidence that is presently lacking". In other words the "concrete demands" are just as utopian.

5)Then we come to the real crux of the matter. What exactly is the nature of the proposed post-capitalist society ? Will it have no market section of the economy ? If it will what exactly is the difference between moving towards such a way of managing enterprises now and waiting for the Second Coming to make it happen ? If it will not is there some sort of magical solution to the problem of the distribution of both effort and reward that will fit all possible cases of all labour and goods in the free society ? What are its benefits and costs ? Once anarchism becomes a mature ideology it will inevitably have to approach the weighing of advantages and disadvantages in a realistic rather than adversarial manner.

6)No doubt the gradual "cooperativization" of a society involves problems. to my mind, however, these problems are exceedingly minor compared to hoping against hope that a blissful libertarian alternative will emerge from simply advocating a strategy of combativeness. Other outcomes are far more likely in such a situation, and permanent irrelevancy may actually be the least unpleasant of the selection.

CANADIAN LABOUR:

FOURTEEN MONTH LOCKOUT SETTLED AT LE JOURNAL DE QUÉBEC:

As promised in the last post there are a few matters arising from recent events in Québec City that I'd like to expand on. The first is the present situation of my source Media Matin Québec . This link is the website and online version of a free newspaper that has been distributed since April 22, 2007 by the locked out workers of Le Journal de Québec five days a week. This dispute pitted the workers represented by the Canadian Union of Public Employees (CUPE) against the Sun Media Corporation and its parent company Québecor. When the workers were locked out they began to publish their own newspaper, Media Matin Québec, and they eventually launched an online version. As of today the online version is still operating.

Why did Molly describe this initiative as "hopeful" ? First of all because it went beyond the usual round of tactics that happen during most strikes and lockouts into the sort of moves that Molly considers to be necessary preliminaries to the building of the sort of libertarian socialism that she favours. What was proven was that the workers at Le Journal de Québec could do the work of producing and distributing a newspaper without the direction of the bosses. If there is to be any real socialism it has to be a socialism that not only has no private owners but much more importantly has no managers as well. The workers at Le Journal proved it could be done. It is true that the paper produced by these workers was considerably less "weighty" than the Le Journal that management continued to produce during the lockout with the help of scab labour. The "means of production" are, after all, the "means of production", but the efforts of these people showed that it is indeed possible to set up an alternative even without the ultimately more effective tactic of plant occupations and resuming production during the occupation.

The contrast between the "somewhat" successful alternative that the workers produced and what they could have done if they had occupied the workplace also points the way to what should be done in future disputes. As Molly has expressed ad nauseum on this blog her approach to anarchism/libertarian socialism is gradualist. It holds much room for the initiation of producers' coops from scratch, but all such initiatives are, of necessity, small scale. It also holds a lot of room for buyouts of firms using pension funds and such that would turn private firms into workers' cooperatives. The tactic of occupying workplaces and resuming production during the occupation could be a very good bargaining tool for workers to gain ownership of their own working lives. To put it at its crudest, the price goes down when the person you are bargaining with holds a bigger gun than you do. Companies unwilling to sell at anything resembling a reasonable price may see reason when the workplace is occupied and merrily chugging away without their control. Sometimes, when conditions of public support are sufficient the price may go down to zero dollars and zero cents. Yes, it can happen !! It all depends on political conditions amongst the population.

Such occupations would also be the method whereby state owned enterprises would be converted to real socialist workplaces, with a blend of worker and community control. Such a "

long march" requires vision, and the socialists who are willing to agitate, organize and educate for it over the course of decades. A long term interplay that would gradually make such occupations an accepted fact and then gradually introduce resolutions other than minor concessions on the part of the employers or better buyouts in the situation here plants are closing has at least a chance of producing a free society. The history of "revolutions" in the past century and a half has consistently shown that such a path produces no such thing. It is also a way whereby large segments of the economy could be gradually brought into the cooperative/socialist sector as opposed to the almost trivial startups of new and tiny coops. Once a cooperative/socialist sector with real financial clout was established the process would accelerate as the existing coops with resources would be able to effectively support new initiatives.

All of this precludes any militaristic fantasies of "violent revolution". Violence would undoubtedly occur during this transition when the ruling class (usually managers rather than owners) could prevail upon their drinking buddies down at the local elite clubs to send in the police. The political cost of such actions, however, could be made progressively more prohibitive by the gradual education of the population by anarchist/cooperative/socialist organizations willing to do the dirty work of long term organization and what should be an almost automatic reflex action on the part of workers involved in such disputes to make immediate and strenuous efforts to swing the local community (and beyond when needed) to their side.

Another thing that was shown by the workers of Le Journal was that decisions can be undertaken democratically- without management directions. If we are to produce a socialism worthy of the name the class power of the managers has to be addressed. Any new enterprises have to be as thoroughly democratic as possible. It would be an useless expenditure of energy to produce a sea of coops that basically reproduce the managerial ruling class of present state (and most corporate) enterprise. That can, unfortunately, happen, especially if the socialists/communalists/anarchists are blind to the viper in their midst, if they are deluded as to the nature of our present class society-managerial in Molly's opinion- and fail to set up barriers to its reproduction in the new institutions they build.

Pheew! That was a long rant. Anyways, here's the article from CUPE that began this tirade. It should be noted that, whatever the state of this tentative agreement Media Matin Québec continues to publish as of today. I personally hope it will continue.

.......................................

Settlement at Journal de Québec
CUPE members at le Journal de Québec have voted 96 per cent in favour of a tentative agreement reached late last night with Québecor.

Leadership of the three locals involved in the 438 day work stoppage had recommended their members vote for the deal.

The agreement ends the longest contract dispute ever at a french-language daily in Canada.
The tentative agreement was reached at 1am, July 2 after a 24 hour, high-level negotiating session.

Some highlights:

*Agreement goes for five years from signing date
*2.5 per cent per year salary increases
*Classified ad services brought back to Québec City (from Kanata)
*37.5 hour, four day work week (37.5 hours over five days for classified ad employees)
*One more week of vacation for temporary employees with more than 10 years service (Molly Note- "temporary employees" with "more than 10 !!!!! years of service" ????)
*Introduce a floor for the number of journalists and photographers to maintain local coverage while allowing multimedia
*Changes to press room work rules in exchange for investment in new equipment
*Early retirement program: four weeks salary per year of service up to 18 months
*Possibility of jobs at Vidéotron for affected office employees

About 280 employees of the Québec City tabloid have been on strike or locked out since April 22, 2007, the first work stoppage to hit the paper since it started in 1967.