To give props is to say, “good job” - high five and all that.

I’m saying good on you to the Canadian government for responding to a citizen’s inquiry.  My inquiry to be specific.  I actually received a response–not a form letter.  Hey, all you American citizens, write Secretary Clinton or someone else in the U.S. Cabinet and see if you get a response.  I’m betting you won’t.

Not quite a year ago I wrote a blog post here, How Lewenza & The CAW Are Misleading Canadians which dealt with the question of how our federal government should respond to the Canadian Auto Workers plea for taxpayer dollars to bail out the Canadian auto industry.   My article included an overly optimistic suggestion that the Harper government hold firm and not provide spendulus money to GM and Chrysler.  As you recall, this was shortly after Harper buckled under pressure and requested that Parliament be suspended.  The fact of the matter is that the Ministry of Finance proposed a budget toward the end of 2008 that included a reduction in government spending and no “stimulus” money–contrary to what the U.S. was doing.  After the turn of the calendar and following the suspension of Parliament, Harper did cave in and deficit spending was authorized.

In any event, at the end of blog post, I posed a few hard questions that needed to be asked of Mr. James Flaherty, Minister of Finance.  I asked these questions and encouraged the reader to do the same.  I received a response.

Read the entire article

Tasmania, Malta, and Ireland have one thing in common.

These countries use a voting system referred to as STV (Single Transferrable Vote).  For the second time in less than a decade, the proponents of STV here in British Columbia have been successful in getting a Referendum on the ballot.  There are less than 11 days remaining before the polls close on the issue and we find out how STV did the second time around.  By the way, advance voting for the 39th Provincial Election begins on May 6th.  The voters of B.C. will decide again whether to keep the current one vote person per candidate system or change it (I did not say “improve” it) to a system called STV.  I know how impressed all of the readers will be with STV simply by noting the impressive list of locations in which STV is currently used.  I’m just saying–whatever electoral system Malta is using is reason enough for many people to believe a “reform” is overdue.  What is really interesting here is that the push for STV to become the law of the land in B.C. did not first originate in California!  We have all grown accustomed to the fact that the really great new reform ideas come from California.  I’m thinking that if STV is successful here in B.C.; maybe we can export it to the U.S.!  Might be some tariffs attached though.  Okay, enough with the tongue and cheek stuff, let’s talk about STV and FPTP (First Past The Post).  However, I have to say this.  I’m a little disappointed, if not peaved, about the fact that the Government website, which is supposed to be neutral with respect to the referendum, uses the word “REFORM” at the top of the page designed to inform the B.C. citizens of what is going on.  The simple definition of reform is to “make changes in something in order to improve it.”  Does the Government’s use of the word “reform” in and of itself present a clear case of bias?  Who says that by going to STV, the current system will be improved?  The answer is the proponents of STV say so but our Government should not be validating the referendum by calling it a 2009 Referendum on Electoral Reform. What say you?

What is STV?

It’s sort of simple, but sort of complicated.  The idea is this.  Rather than have a one vote per person going only to one candidate, you could have your vote split up and help elect other candidates whom were not your first choice.  In effect, your one “transferrable” vote could help elect a second, third, fourth, and so on, choice.  The whole concept is designed to minimize, if not eliminate, the principle of “majority rule.”  Proponents of STV would like say, “Why should someone who obtains a majority of the vote in an election district (called “ridings” in B.C.) be the single elected representative for that district?  My only answer to that question is self-evident; “Because he or she received the majority of the votes, duh!”  However, the STV people will counter and say, “Yes, but what about the 49% of the folks that did not vote for the majority candidate?  They receive no representation at all.”  Their solution is this.  Let’s expand the geographical size of the election district and increase the number of people to be elected (to at least a minimum of two) and then we can have two people elected to more proportionately represent the district.  One reply I have to that argument is this.  Why not simply allow the folks in the enlarged geographical area to elect their own candidate by a majority vote in the first place.  In that situation (using the current FPTP voting system), the person elected in that geographical area becomes the representative for the folks that the STV people were trying to merge into the a different district.  See what I mean.  It’s simple but sort of complicated.  Let me confuse you more.  Here’s how the transfer of your vote system works.  Let’s say there are 10,000 “valid votes” cast in a district.  The legal formula promulgates that this number is divided by the number of “positions” to be elected plus one.  Three positions to be filled would require that the 10,000 valid votes be divided by 4.  Add one vote to the result of that division and the sum is the magic number a candidate is striving for.  This first mathematical exercise is necessary to determine the “quota” of votes necessary for a candidate to be elected.  In other words, any candidate that receives 2501 in our example would be elected.  Say one person received at least 2501 “first choice” votes.  All of the votes the winning candidate received above the quota are deemed to be “surplus” votes.  A whole new mathematical formula now kicks in to find out who the second elected candidate is.  After that, we do more math to determine who the third elected candidate is.  Here’s the link to see how this other math is crunched.  Or, alternatively if you would rather just see a simple example in pdf format, click here.

After you study both sides of the issue, you will be confronted with an important question.   If the referendum passes, the number of electoral geographical districts in B.C. will be reduced from 85 ridings to 20. The total number of elected officials will remain the same at 85.    Here’s good example of how that might impact the folks.  Let’s say STV is the system used in the U.S.  The electoral district that now includes New Mexico for Congressional representation is now merged with Texas.  The total number of elected representatives will stay the same but the process to determine who wins the election is STV.  Let’s say there are 32 representatives in the House of Representatives from Texas (which is correct).  Let’s also say New Mexico has 3 representatives in the House of Representatives (which is correct).  Based upon STV, all 35 representatives could come from Dallas, Houston, San Antonio, El Paso, Austin, Fort Worth, Wichita Falls and so on.  The folks in Santa Fe, or Clovis, New Mexico now have no representation.  You think that wouldn’t happen; you’re wrong.  Just because the folks in New Mexico cast their vote in order of choice, i.e., first choice, second choice and so on does not mean that any of the candidates located in the heretofore New Mexico geographical area received enough votes to meet the quota nor does it mean that after all the “transfer math” is done a candidate from that geographical area will be elected.  Study the examples provided by the B.C. Government or go to NOSTV.org to see exactly how this type of elected representation can, and likely will happen in B.C.  If you live in an area outside of Vancouver, you could likely end up with a representative or group of representatives all from within the greater Vancouver area.  How many more MLA’s do you think the Vancouver area needs?  There are now several from Surrey, several from Vancouver, a couple from North Vancouver, seven MLA’s from Langley, three from Richmond, a few from Delta, White Rock and so on.

An STV Prediction — Who has the better marketing plan?

No doubt about it.  The pro-STV people have the better marketing plan this time; hands down.  If you go to both websites you will see what I mean.  Here’s the Pro STV site enlarged. OR Here’s the No to STV site enlarged. Everyone knows that when it gets down to the nitty gritty it’s the marketing of an issue or candidate that makes the difference, not necessarily the facts.  I’m just saying; look at the Senate race in Minnesota for crying out loud!  Marketing, text-messaging and donations is where it’s at.  You can’t expect to just present facts and expect to win.  I’m really disappointed in Norman Grdina, the financial contact with the No BC-STV Campaign Society.  Unfortunately, Mr. Grdina is a forensic accountant—not a marketing expert.  It is kinda cool that he is a Notre Dame alum but he should have studied marketing instead of accounting.  In the event you missed it when you were at the B.C. Elections Government website, the taxpayers contributed $1,000,000 to the funding of the marketing campaigns.  I have no idea why yet, but according to the website, B.C. Elections was required by law to give each organization $500,000 in cool cash to get the word out.  In these tough economic times, doesn’t that piss you off?  Does me.  Heck, if we were going to throw some money away; we could have simply gave it to GM or Chrysler.  In any event, we’ve paid for much of the marketing hype on the Pro STV vs. No STV campaigns.  Unfortunately, I believe the Pro STV got a much bigger bang for their buck and will likely win.  I’m clearly against changing the current FPTP (First Past The Post) system we are using but I do believe Jamie Deith and  STV folks have done a much better job of marketing their “non-message.”  It reminds me a lot of the “Change you can believe in” slogan that was so very successful for obama.

We’ll all decide here in a few days.  I just hope the folks that have a inkling for change will do some research before they cast their vote to STV.  Please vote No on the STV referendum.  Please leave me a comment, a Digg, a Kudo, or a Technorati vote even if you disagree with my position.  Thanks for coming by.

CAW President Lewenza — Here we go again with the “I’m angry” thing.

On December 9, 2008, I wrote an article here that quotes the Canadian Auto Workers’ Union President, Ken Lewenza as saying that he was pissed off.  Now, according to an article quoting Lewenza in the Toronto Sun on March 17th, he “. . . went to sleep angry and woke up fuming. . .” In December, Lewenza was mad as hell that Parliament recessed before a “cram down” automotive spendulus stimulus bailout was in place.  In December Lewenza knew if the “urgent” bailout was not in place quickly before the Canadian people had time to think; it would be much harder to obtain it later.  Moreover, and perhaps more importantly to him, Lewenza knew if the government bailout did not come in a hurry in December, the CAW might have to actually grant the Big Three serious labor concessions!  On December 9th, my response to Lewenza being pissed off was simply, “Who cares?”  My response here is; “So, who cares?”   The answer to the question both times is the same.  The only people that might care that Lewenza went to bed angry and woke up “fuming” are the members of the CAW.  Lewenza is mad this time at Chrysler.  In December he was mad at Parliament, the Governor General of Canada, and Harper.  Here’s a guy that is supposed to be a leader of 30,000+ Canadian Auto Workers in negotiation with the auto manufacturing companies, and his strategy is to make headlines by clamoring his alleged anger to the public rather than offer substantive arguments for the CAW’s position.  I’m not impressed.  I say Lewenza is actually hiding a smile in the photo to the left.  What most Canadians do not know is that these alleged painful concessions (wage freeze) granted to GM by the CAW are all subject to GM receiving taxpayer bailout money!  What? In other words, CAW does not agree to cost saving concessions to GM unless the government loans money to GM.  I’m hard pressed to understand that strategy.  You would think that Lewenza would have negotiated a deal with GM regardless of whether GM qualifies for government bailout funds or not.  Maybe I am simply not near as smart as Lewenza but it seems to me that if GM does not get our taxpayer bailout funds, then won’t GM want deeper concessions from the CAW, right?  The wage freeze that Lewenza touts as some big major sacrifice by the CAW members was already in place contractually last year.  The new agreement simply extends the wage freeze an additional year.  We’ve been slimed again by Lewenza.

Chrysler wants to cut labor costs by 25%; are you angry about that?

I am baffled by the thought that Ken Lewenza would believe that the Canadian people would be concerned at all that he is angry at Tom LaSorda, President of Chrysler because LaSorda wants to cut Chrysler’s labor costs.   I’m glad that Chrysler wants to cut labor costs and I believe most Canadians feel the same way.  Here’s the deal.  The CAW negotiated a deal with GM wherein the CAW has agreed to a freeze on wages until 2012; shorter vacations; and more contributions to its members own health benefits.  Lewenza has got to be hiding a smile in the photo (above-left)–these concessions are hardly a major sacrifice by autoworkers.  I am unable to find any report that CAW members agreed to a wage cut–and that is exactly what is needed.  Chrysler has the correct position here.  The CAW must agree to wage cuts–not just a wage freeze–in order for these companies to have a competitive chance of surviving.   Lewenza pretends to be a fair-market capitalist by complaining that Chrysler would have an unfair market advantage over GM if the CAW were to actually cut wages. Give me a break.  Lewenza is a union leader—he hardly cares whether one automaker has an advantage over another.  Besides, the wage cut that Chrysler is demanding might be the only way it can obtain the government’s loan approval.  Lewenza certainly did not offer any hard evidence that Chrysler would have an unfair advantage over GM.  Just saying it does not make it so.  The CAW is only interested in conceding a bare bones minimum (if anything at all) in order for GM and Chrysler to receive taxpayer bailout money!  If the CAW were actually interested in the long-term survival of the Big Three, it would seek solutions that ensure the competitive viability of the companies.  Such solutions undoubtedly call for the CAW members to agree to wage cuts that bring their wages more in line with the rest of the world-wide auto industry.   There is no evidence that the CAW has adopted a different philosophy that in the recent past.   In December, I pointed out the fact that the CAW had adopted a seven point strategy in 2005 for dealing with companies within the auto industry that might seek concessions from the CAW.   Below I have repeated strategy number one because it is far more aprapos today than in 2005.

1. Resist concessions at all costs: We will demonstrate with actions, when words are not enough, that auto parts companies cannot solve their problems on the backs of their workers through concessions in wages, pensions, and benefits. If this requires demonstrations, plant occupations, strikes, or any other non-violent action by CAW members and their community allies, then the CAW will be ready. Parts makers who attempt to solve their problems by forcibly extracting concessions from their workers, will find their ability to effectively do business in Canada severely constrained.

There is no doubt that dialogue between Lewenza and Chrysler will continue to heat up over the next few days.  Chrysler needs to hold firm against the CAW and its hyperbole. According to some internet bloggers, labor unions are less than honest.  See Unions are a cesspool of corruption and crime for a quick swipe at unions.  I’m not quite ready to go as far as other bloggers in my description of labor unions but no doubt the unions continue to leave a trail of slime every where.  I simply hope Chrysler knows this as well.

The Federal Government must hold firm.

Regardless of whether the CAW and the auto companies actually reach agreements, the Federal Government must hold firm as well.  The problem for us, the taxpayers is we do not know what the government’s due diligence is.  Federal Finance Minister Jim Flaherty has said that GM and Chrysler “would have to pass a “survivability test” including negotiating “competitive” compensation packages for workers with counterparts at U.S. unionized and non-union auto plants.”  Notice that the survivability test includes a requirement that the compensation packages for autoworkers must be competitive.  How will the government determine the competitiveness of these packages?  Will it compare the compensation packages to the wages paid Korean workers by Hyundai and Kia?  Will the government require that the compensation packages be competitive to what Toyota and Honda pay their workers?  Our federal government should not simply give GM a wink and a nod while pretending that the agreement ratified last week by the CAW meets the survivability test as articulated by Flaherty.  Industry Minister, Tony Clement recently said, “We will ensure that there is a viable long-term sustainability plan involving all stakeholders in place before we commit any taxpayer dollars.”  The problem I have with both the statements made by Flaherty and Clement is that we are not provided any specifics as to how the government will decide that GM and Chrysler are worthy of your tax dollars.  What is the test?  How will the government decide that there is a plan that ensures long-term sustainability or that the companies have reached or exceeded some nebulous “survivability” test?  No one seems to be sharing any of the specifics.  Is it because the government does not want us to know exactly how it will decide.  I’m concerned that the government might be leaving room to talk out of both sides of its mouth.  What say you?  I strongly encourage you all to contact Jim Flaherty, the Federal Finance Minister and the Industry Minister, Tony Clement to voice your opinions and concerns.  You may email Flaherty at flaherty.j@parl.gc.ca however, it is not as easy to reach Tony Clement.  The Industry Minister’s website provides you an address, phone numbers, and general inquiry email.

The Conservative Budget is released.

Today Prime Minister Harper’s budget has been released.  If this budget does not satisfy the Liberal opposition, they will move to form a coalition and demand a new election to defeat the Conservative government.  What the Liberals want is no surprise–more spending, big deficit.  Often I wonder if the U.S. Democrats take their cue from the Canadian Liberals of visa versa.  I want to be one of the first that predict that the Liberals and the NDP will do everything they can to cause the budget vote to fail.  

Harper faced a glaring dilemma.

Last December, Harper faced the likely move by opposition to attempt to topple his regime by causing an election following no confidence votes in Parliament.  The no confidence votes were an imminent threat by the opposition because Harper had not moved on an acceptable stimulus package for the economy.  

 A Liberal-NDP coalition, backed by the Bloc Quebecois, was prepared to defeat the Harper government before Christmas after Flaherty (Minister of Finance) delivered an economic update that proposed slashing government spending, selling off assets - and no economic stimulus.1

Despite the fact there were many conservatives that did not want Harper to succumb to the pressure, he did anyway.  Harper persuaded the Governor General to suspend Parliament to buy some time to formulate a “new budget.”  Now that the new budget is being released today, it will be voted on immediately.  The obvious question is this: Will there be enough spending in the budget to convince the opposition that they can not defeat the budget?  I believe that the opposition will oppose the budget regardless of its content.  After all, aren’t all proposed budgets in Canada but a political document–more or less an op-ed in this case.  Harper already knows that regardless of the content of the budget, it will always face opposition.  For example, David MacDonald, analyst at the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives opines that:

If the federal government is serious about buffering Canadians against the worst of this recession, it shouldn’t be looking toward tax cuts. It should abandon those ideological precepts.2

I can hardly believe what I just quoted.  Here is analyst working for a institution seeking policy alternatives advocating that the Conservative Party should abandon its ideology of tax cuts!  Need I say more.  Prime Minister Harper, you definitely will not please everyone.  There are those in opposition who believe that only through massive government spending will the country survive an economic recession.

The second question I have is, “why should we care?” Mr. Lewenza is quoted as being fighting mad. He’s mad because Parliament was suspended before a “stimulus package” was in place for the Canadian automobile companies. Lewenza says, “there’s a battle to wage.”1

I happen to believe its a good thing that Lewenza is mad; I will explain below.

An aside, Lewenza apparently loves the use of hyperbole, and he likes to point with two fingers, sort of revolver style. Lewenza became the Canadian Auto Worker’s union boss just this past September. He was the only candidate in a special election held when the previous CAW president, Buzz Hargrove, was retiring. What’s interesting here is that one of the first things Lewenza is quoted as saying just this past September is:

. . . many [auto industry] jobs have been lost as buyers moved to more fuel-efficient cars made by foreign companies — even though the cars are often assembled in Canada or the U.S.

Lewenza is peeved because we, the buyers, have been purchasing fuel efficient cars and therefore, the government should do something about it. Does that seem logical to you?

A little more background is necessary.

In 2005 then CAW president Buzz Hargrove threatened to make sagging auto sales an election issue. What? Three plus years ago, Hargrove and other union leaders were suffering acute anxiety that the auto companies would soon be demanding labor concessions as a solution to the admitted fact that the “auto industry” was in trouble.2 In 2005, Hargrove offered his solution to the problem of sagging domestic car sales. The CAW’s definition of the “auto industry” appears to only include domestic car manufacturers–not those evil import companies.

The way to solve the problems of the auto industry today is to stop the imports from killing us or get the opportunity to export to those nations that won’t let us sell our products today. 3

Hargrove made the above statement at a CAW leadership meeting in November 2005, which was convened to discuss ways to “fight” the expected demand for labor concessions from auto parts manufacturers. Hargrove failed to offer any explanation as to why concessions should not be on the table; of course the answer to that question is quite obvious. If labor concessions were on the table how would that be in his best proprietary interest or that of the workers. At the 2005 meeting, the CAW formulated its “7 point action plan” which by the way reads like a strategic battle plan in anticipation of a war being declared; and even before any diplomatic efforts have been made. The first of the seven strategies stated below, tells us what we need to know.

1. Resist concessions at all costs: We will demonstrate with actions, when words are not enough, that auto parts companies cannot solve their problems on the backs of their workers through concessions in wages, pensions, and benefits. If this requires demonstrations, plant occupations, strikes, or any other non-violent action by CAW members and their community allies, then the CAW will be ready. Parts makers who attempt to solve their problems by forcibly extracting concessions from their workers, will find their ability to effectively do business in Canada severely constrained.4

Okay, stop right there; a little review is necessary. We know that in 2005 the CAW leadership was acutely aware the “auto industry” was in serious trouble. I am quite confident that Hargrove and the 200 other CAW leaders were acutely aware of the situation long before the 2005 meeting. In any event, the CAW president clearly presented his solution i.e., that someone [government?] needed to stop the import companies from killing us [domestic companies] or “get the opportunity to export more cars to those nations that won’t let us sell our products to them.” [sic] Please note that Hargrove did not offer any facts to support his assertions nor did he identify the countries that he was claiming were not allowing our cars [domestic products?] to be imported. Hargrove also failed to offer any details on who was supposed to stop the imports [companies?] or how to stop the imports, or why Canadian citizens should want to for that matter. It is no surprise that Hargrove failed to take any responsibility for the market conditions, nor did he assume any accountability on behalf of the domestic auto industry for the state of affairs. It’s always someone else’s fault–not ours! It’s not the CAW or manufacturers’ fault that Canadian citizens are buying import products, it’s the government’s fault. It is also worth noting; there never seems to be an explanation from any labor representative why concessions are not a possible partial solution to high labor costs!

Despite the fact that auto industry analysts cite labor and product as the two primary reasons for the sales woes of the domestic auto companies, Lewenza comes out of his corner swinging. He immediately draws a line in the sand vowing to fight the Harper government and demands a stimulus package for the car manufacturers! He says, “ . . . that victory means the union will keep pushing for a stimulus package that suits the needs of Canadians and the auto industry.” What does a stimulus package that suits the needs of Canadians look like? The CAW boss is fighting the minority government on behalf of the auto companies. How oxymoronic is that?

Shouldn’t the CAW Targets Be The Banks?

By the way, why is the CAW not fighting the banks? Should we assume the auto companies that are begging for a taxpayer bailout have already been turned down by the banks? If so, why? If not, why don’t the not-so Big Three car companies go to the banks for additional funding? If the banks have turned them down, maybe it’s because the business plan stinks. Please don’t tell me that the credit market is frozen and there is no money available except from the government.

So What Did Happen To The CAW 7 Point Plan?

What happened to the call for someone to stop those evil import companies from killing us? What happened to the urgent desperate need to get those closed markets open? We can easily see that the 7 point plan has become a one or two point plan. The plan has been reduced to a couple of simple strategies. One, the chosen method of resisting concessions at all costs is preeminent. It obviously includes supporting a government bailout for the same companies that the CAW would never give concessions to. The CAW battle cry is: “Give’em tax dollars not concessions!” The plan to resist concessions at all costs is an easier path to follow than one which would actually solve the “auto industry” long term problems. The question no one seems to be asking is this. How will a government stimulus package solve the manufacturers’ problem of having labor costs too high to compete in a global competitive market? With automobiles being manufactured here and in Japan, Korea, China, and India for less while offering more value, please someone explain how a government handout of tax dollars will solve the “auto industry” problem.

Below are provisions of the 7 point plan developed by CAW leadership in 2005 that have disappeared:

If a CAW-represented plant or employer faces big financial challenges, CAW local and national representatives will meet quickly with company officials to examine the financial and operational facts of the situation and develop an action plan. (emphasis added)5

and

Draw government into the solution: . . . The CAW will work closely with
government officials where appropriate to stabilize and revitalize troubled facilities. (emphasis added)6

Do you see the smoke and mirrors. The CAW offers solutions to a recognized auto industry problem, but then says “IF” there is a problem such that their members’ employers face BIG financial challenges, the CAW will “examine” operational facts to develop a solution. Would outrageously high labor costs be an “operational fact” to examine? I am just wondering: When do you suppose the meetings were held? You know, the meetings between CAW leaders and the not-so Big Three company officials to examine operational facts and to develop an action plan? Perhaps, there were meetings in 2005 and the action plan that resulted is the one being executed right now i.e., blame it all on the government, and demand that the government use tax dollars to bail them all out. This does not comport with the 7 point plan that included a strategy to work closely with government officials when appropriate, but whatever, it simply must not have been “appropriate.”

Recently, Lewenza has spun some different rhetoric. While insisting that the government increase EI benefit amounts for the “auto industry” (not for all unemployed workers) because its not the workers’ fault sales are suffering, he laments:

The union has shown time and time again that it’s flexible and willing to take creative approaches when finding solutions. We welcome the opportunity to join with other industry players in rebuilding the auto industry.7

Would anyone care to offer some evidence of that assertion? Lewenza stayed with strategy number one by going on to say: “. . .slashing workers’ wages and benefits will do nothing to solve the industry’s problems.”

If Lewenza wins his war, the result is likely that in the short term, the companies win, the union wins, and the auto workers win. How do Canadians win, given the fact that we are consistently purchasing cars now with better gas mileage and more value for the price?

The key survivor of the now demised 7 point plan is the win at all cost strategy to save union benefits:

Plant closures or bankruptcies may jeopardize the future pension or post- retirement health benefits of CAW members. The CAW will enlist its Union in Politics Committees and other allies to campaign forcefully to protect the pensions and retirement benefits of CAW members affected by the fight against concessions, and to step up the fight for stronger policies to protect pensions.8

Do not misunderstand me, I’m not against worker benefits. What I have trouble with is the hyperbole that the CAW leaders will use to attempt to bolster public opinion toward their plan to save their salaries, positions, and existence. The CAW will do what is in their best proprietary interest and will resist all concessions at any cost regardless of the conditions on the ground. I have a problem with the fact that the CAW is in denial–its failure to admit that it and the members’ employers are in the position they are in because of their own doing–it is NOT someone else’s fault!

One fact that is not being discussed is this. The Canadian “auto-industry” is not just Ford, Chrysler, and GM. The other automobile companies, some with manufacturing plants in Canada, are not asking for taxpayers to bail them out. Honda doesn’t claim that Toyota is “killing” it with unfair trade and/or labor practices.

Lewenza is fighting mad, well I hope all citizens are as well. The reason it is most likely a good thing for taxpayers that the CAW president is fighting mad is simply this. He wants taxpayer dollars to support companies that have made strategic mistakes. Lewenza wants our dollars to continue to prop up the high labor costs that the CAW has obviously helped bring about. Despite the fact that consumers are buying other products, Lewenza is mad that the government is not using our dollars to subsidize the failed managerial policies of the not so Big Three. So, here’s the way I see it. I’m better off each and every day that goes by that Lewenza is fighting mad. I sure hope he remains mad for a long time.

Post a comment, let me know what you think.

1. See, http://www.cbc.ca/canada/toronto/story/2008/12/05/caw-stimulus.html
2. See http://www.cbc.ca/money/story/2005/11/11/caw-parts051111.html
3. See http://www.cbc.ca/money/story/2005/11/11/caw-parts051111.html
4. http://caw.exmi.ca/whoweare/CAWpoliciesandstatements/pdfs/7PointActionPlan.pdf
5. http://caw.exmi.ca/whoweare/CAWpoliciesandstatements/pdfs/7PointActionPlan.pdf
6. http://caw.exmi.ca/whoweare/CAWpoliciesandstatements/pdfs/7PointActionPlan.pdf
7. http://www.caw.ca/en/5201.htm
8. http://caw.exmi.ca/whoweare/CAWpoliciesandstatements/pdfs/7PointActionPlan.pdf