For a long time, an argument against a working-class orientation toward ecological issues went along the lines that unions would never put environmental concerns ahead of so-called bread and butter issues, like wages or benefits. This is an argument sometimes raised against green syndicalism. While it is true that business unions have generally taken a myopic view on what they think to be working class issues and have limited their approach to the issues to bargaining, it is clear that some things are changing, in ways that green syndicalists have predicted. These changes reflect nothing less than the fact that ecological crises, especially climate emergencies, have become bread and butter—indeed existential—issues for working class people.
One manifestation of this has been the move of climate crisis related issues to the center of bargaining, in large unions in major industries. Elsewhere I have discussed the Teamsters pressing heat related issues in bargaining with UPS. We are now seeing climate transition related issues being raised by the autoworkers union (Unifor) in Big Three bargaining In the Canadian context. This comes only month after the Canadian Labour Congress (CLC) voted to adopt a climate and “just transition” plan for the first time.
Workers are openly expressing concerns about the future of their jobs and communities. It is another step beyond a jobs versus environment framework. Addressing climate change is being centered in discussions over work and the workplace. Yet there remain limitations as this is carried out within business union frameworks and actions.
Canadian Labor, the Big Three, and Transition Bargaining
During the present round of Big Three negotiations in Canada, Unifor member autoworkers at Stellantis, General Motors, and Ford are raising the threat of strike over transition to electric vehicle (EV) manufacturing jobs, along with more standard issues of wages and pensions. They are pressing for secure, well-paying, and climate-aware manufacturing jobs, after years of union wariness about transition.
Part of this is motivated by perceived necessity. The Canadian government has legislated that by 2035 automakers will be required legally to sell only zero-emission vehicles in Canada. Unifor sees this as an opportunity for jobs, but they must ensure its members are not cut out in the transition.
Unifor is seeking investments and commitments from employers to protect jobs through the EV transition. They incorrectly see this as part of an economic path that addresses climate change while contributing to the sustainability of workers’ jobs.
I have experienced something like this directly and it did not go well. During my years as an autoworker and Canadian Auto Workers (predecessor to Unifor) member, at the Chrysler minivan plant in Windsor, Ontario, we were sold a similar line on investments and job security under the promise of minivans saving Chrysler. What we got instead were compromises, concessions, under constant threats of pulled investment.
One thing that makes this additionally worth watching is that for the first time in over 20 years, both Unifor and the United Auto Workers (UAW) in the US are negotiating collective agreements with the Big Three automakers at the same time. As of this writing, however, this has not led to coordinated action against the employers.
This is also coming shortly after the CLC, which represents over 50 unions and three million members but notably not Unifor, finally voted to adopt a just transition plan. Unfortunately, the plan is neither binding on member unions, nor does it address real demands and ways of realizing them. Instead, it defaults to the business union favorites of “pressuring the government,” lobbying, and advocating for certain limited reforms. Among these are nationalistic policies that center domestic strategies to produce all of the components for manufacturing EVs in Canada.
From a green perspective, none of this addresses the problems with EV production and use. Consumption of land for mining and roads, waste and ecological harms of production, toxins in fuel cells, etc. Neither does it call for reorganizing social life, as in emphasizing mass transit, shorter working days, affordable housing near workplaces, etc. And, of course, it does nothing to contest the capital-labor relationship and ownership and production for profit. Capital remains in the driver’s seat so to speak.
Most encouragingly some CLC delegates did directly call out the limitations of bargaining and business union models. Several pointed out that rights to strike are only legally protected for unionized workers during collective bargaining and pointed to contract causes prohibiting wildcats. Some openly called on delegates to support disobeying those laws.
A First Deal, Without Rank-and-File Enthusiasm
At time of writing, Unifor members initially ratified a three-year deal with Ford in Canada, the first target in their patterned bargaining with the Big Three companies. With a Ford deal in place, Unifor will now try to reproduce that agreement at General Motors and Stellantis (which includes Chrysler and Dodge). Unifor announced it has chosen GM as its next bargaining target, saying it will start talks this week on a new contract for 4,300 workers at the company. The Ford deal covers 5,600 workers in Canada, mostly in Oakville and Windsor, Ontario.
Unifor reports that the wage increases, at 15 percent over three years, are the highest ever negotiated in bargaining with an automaker in Canada. The deal also changed the pay grid such that a newly hired production worker will make $29.67 an hour and reach the top of the pay grid in four years instead of the current eight years. That top grid pay will be $42.39 an hour. The deal also includes a reactivated cost-of-living allowance, a $10,000 bonus, two new paid holidays, and improvements to the pension plan, a key point for retirees.
Unifor has reported that in this deal Ford has confirmed its commitments to transform the Oakville operation to an electric vehicle assembly plant with expected production start in 2025. This includes “special (electric vehicle) transition measures” for Unifor members who could lose their jobs as changes are made to the Oakville assembly plant.
It should be noted that support for the deal was extremely low with only 54 percent of the members who voted endorsing the proposed collective agreement. Unifor has explained this by saying that this reflects increased expectations among workers in a context of growing cost of living and basic expenses in Canada. Rank-and-file members, however, have positioned it as a sell-out deal, precisely because workers are ready to fight for what is theirs. Support for the strike has been extremely high publicly and more people in Canada are expressing favorable views toward both unions and strikes in recent polling. For rank-and-file members, this contract represents a retreat, especially in a context of growing rank-and-file anger and militance. Some point to the UAW strike in the US as a further indication of the rightness of striking at this time, with companies being struck on both sides of the border.
Limits, But Some Possibility
There remain, of course, limits to what we are seeing even as parts of these shifts, especially rank-and-file debates over strategies and tactics, are encouraging. First is that climate crises will not be halted, or even slowed, by a shift to more capitalist production—however shiny green the products might seem. The ecological problems associated with electric vehicles have been well documented for decades.
Second, business unions and their bargaining orientation are not up to the challenge posed by our ecological present, let alone an even more disastrous future. The ecological crises are moving too fast for bargaining, the scope is too great to be bargained away.
Third, workers will not be served by laws passed by the capitalist state. Neither will they be served by the transition policies of those governments. The pitfalls are highlighted in the very words of Bea Bruske, President of the Canadian Labour Congress who lauded the transition resolution by saying, “By prioritizing workers and incorporating many of our key concerns, this legislation presents an opportunity to establish a model of collaboration that places workers, their unions, industry, and governments on the same path towards a sustainable and resilient economy.”
This is an approach that is doomed to failure, like other business union approaches that valorize “a seat at the table.” It is at most a continuation of press release politics that captures much of the mainstream labor movement. The CLC orientation is clearly a collaborationist approach that will hold out the illusion of participation, while, again rendering unions as lower management for capital’s schemes. Clearly, capital and labor cannot be on the “same path” when it comes to a choice between profitability and senseless growth versus ecological survival. That major unions do not recognize or admit this, as climate emergencies intensify tells us plenty about how we got to this imperiled state.
Green syndicalism is not an approach to bargaining with capital, while capital remains in charge. It is driven toward expropriating capital and ending capitalism.
At the same time these shifts in approach that bring climate change concerns closer to the center of mainstream labor movements, even into the core of bargaining, offer opportunities for more radical ecological and labor movements.
If it is recognized that industries need to be transformed to address climate crises, then why not transform production relations (ownership and control) more fully. The limitations and contradictions of capitalist control of production in these transformations will, in all likelihood, come to the fore in various ways (including even in bargaining).
Comments