Canadian Auto-Workers In Windsor, Ontario Take Another Hit.

What has been the reaction of government at all levels? Frankly, nothing inspirational. Windsor's mayor has bought into the line that the auto companies should get incentives from taxpayers in order to entice them to continue investing. The provincial government so far has remained non-commital (though rumours of some kind of hand-out circulates) on any action. Besides some vague statements by Paul Martin, the feds have maintained their typical NAFTAesque "let the market straighten it out" position (isn't this what got us in this predicament in the first place?). As far as the politcal parties go, for some, instituting an "auto-policy" seems to be the vote grabbing catch phrase of the day. What "auto-policy" means is up for interpretation, as it may mean the subsidies pitch or pressuring the union (CAW) to make concessions to entice more investment, or a combination of the two. What is for certain is that none are talking about democratic control of capital, public ownership, or any other interventionist measures that may empower Canadian workers. The neo- liberal agenda makes any democratisation of the industry a moot point and their acceptance of the primacy of the interests of the holders of capital make the main politcal parties (including the NDP) part of the problem not the solution.

The CAW has responded to the crisis by embarking on a "Buy Domestic" campaign. This is a variation on the "Buy the Cars Your Neighbours Build" theme from decades back. The campaign has incuded the use of billboards, fliers, and media releases to get the message out. The thrust of the campaign is to get local people to understand that buying vehicles built in Windsor or Canada directly contributes to the local economy. Numbers of spin off jobs and tax dollars are quoted to hammer home the significance of the domestic auto industry. This campaign is not without its confusion. First, there is no "Canadian" ownership of automobile production (aside from parts suppliers like anti-union Magna). Second, many of the cars assembled in Canada include foreign built components. Third, foreign automakers such as Volvo and BMW are owned wholely or in part by so-called "domestic" auto manufacturers such as Ford. Forth, the campaign seems to be promoting companies (including Canadian firms) which would love nothing more than to set up shop in low wage, non-union havens like the southern U.S., Mexico, or China (where the lion's share of the investment is occuring). Fifth, auto-makers like Toyota and Honda (which the "Big Three" are competing with for market share) build in Canada and employ Canadian workers. Sixth, none of this points to Canadian independence from foreign (and domestic) capital's whims and wants which is the root of the problem. Instead it seems to be engendering a type of North American auto- chavinism and acceptance of the corporate rhetoric of competition among and between Canadian workers and foreign workers. This does not reflect well on a CAW which is seen by many as a champion of Canada's sovereignty and the separation of company interests from those of the workers.

While the above parties move within the confines of the capitalist/ continentalist/neo-liberal paradigm, the local media, in the form of the CanWest Global owned Windsor Star throws blame on the CAW for the layoffs. Ignoring the world wide over capacity in the auto-industry (which has nothing to do with the workers as the decision to build production capacity is not theirs), the WTO -induced end of the auto-pact, and the anti-democratic nature of the current politcal and economic system, Windsor's only local daily paper, in editorial form, points to good wages and benefits bargained by the union as the big reasons for the reductions in investment and workforce. It seems, in the Star's logic, that only share holders and CEOs deserve good (see: outrageous) compensation for their investments, while workers deserve "fair" wages and benefits for theirs' (for an answer to what "fair" means, I encourage anyone reading this to solicit the editorial board of the Windsor Star for their opinion of Ontario's anemic minimum wage). The opinion piece lectures on stating "when companies review their global options, it will be workforces that are seen to be co-operative and productive that will attract new investment." This "be good for goodness sake" corporation-as-Santa Claus logic is consistently peddled to Windsor workers by the Star.

A "soft market" for their product, a polluted environment, a government not representative of workers needs or aims, neo-liberal mainstream political parties, a union leadership desperately grappling with the situation, a dependency on capital (especially U.S. capital), and a blatantly pro- corporate daily media, are combining to place workers in Windsor Ontario at a terrible disadvantage in the age of neo-liberalism. The days of being able to count on anyone else but themselves and the organisations, including those political, they create for their own interests are a thing of the Keynesian past. It may be time to ask the question: Does the "free market" economy threaten Canadian workers more than it offers them? Some things are for certain. The peace of the post-war period is over, the gloves are off, and the sooner workers in Windsor (or the rest of Canada), come to this conclusion, the sooner this race to the bottom can stop, and the fight for control of their community(ies) and this country can begin.