September 13, 2024

• IAM members at Boeing are on the picket lines
• 33,000 Boeing workers in Washington state
• Almost 95 per cent rejected the tentative deal
• 96 per cent voted to strike

The union leadership are in hot water after apparently pushing against an overwhelming sense of anger at the grass roots.

The strike will limit Boeing’s ability to deliver planes, slowing its cash flow after it reported an $8.3bn outflow during the first half of the year. The company’s credit rating stands one notch above junk, and avoiding a downgrade depends on its ability to generate cash from deliveries.

The issue is pay. But, it is very clear that the workers are angry at the company generally. Anything but a good wage settlement was likely going to be rejected by the members who have been under constant pressure to produce under worsening anti-worker conditions at Boeing plants.

From all reports since the myriad of failures and the 737 Max crash that killed 346 people, the company's culture is rotten.

This is not surprising to those who have been watching the transformation of Boeing over the previous two decades. Shareholder profit motives, untested work restructuring, lack of federal regulatory oversight, and a management who could care less that there are people who pay for all this penny pinching.

If Boeing wants to survive, the workers are essentially demanding that capital should not be making profit, but should have to pay the real costs of stabilizing the company. The only folks who can do that are the workers.

The tables have turned for a short time. The members of IAM are demanding wages, but we all know that when workers reject 25% wage increase, it is the loud demand for change.

All of those who get on planes and want them to fly without incident should listen.

The companies are complaining that strikes in Canada at the federal level cost them profits.

They want the government to intervene:

Business Council of Canada president Goldy Hyder joined several groups in urging Ottawa to consider binding arbitration amid the threat of a looming Air Canada pilot strike. A stoppage could begin Sept. 17 if a deal is not reached between the company and Air Line Pilots Association on Sunday.

“A one-day strike would take a full week to recover from,” Hyder warned in arguing the feds need to act for the country’s “greater good.” Canadian Federation of Independent Business president Dan Kelly added that binding arbitration is “not a cake walk” for employers because there are still “risks” to businesses. “It’s not the federal government stepping on the scale, one way or the other. It is really to try and head off a major economic challenge for the country.”

There is an old adage in labour history around strikes, you pay one way or another. If capital intervenes, doesn't negotiate, and the state imposes rules, productivity declines as much as if a deal was made with the union.

If you think that a Boeing strike sends a message about corporate culture and safety of flying, what do you think the message is when all Air Canada pilots strike?

I wouldn't get on an Air Canada plane any time soon if the government abuses 107 in the Canadian Labour Code again. Angry pilots do not make smooth flights.

The labour movement needs to make sure that capital pays dearly for playing this game. The right to strike exists because workers are not slaves. It is enshrined in our laws because Canadians understand that it is better to have workers be able to strike than it is to deal with the consequences of trying to ban that action.

Canadians know this because our politicians have learned the hard way that there is no easy solution to strike action under capitalism. Just look at our history from state violent hammers against strikes to the established Constitutional right to strike.

Section 107 is the part of the Canada Labour Code that gives the federal Minister of Labour the ability to, in some instances, send labour disputes to interest arbitration. It was established for a very clear reason:

• the government and capital have overstated the public opposition to the general strikes of the 1970s. This narrative lead to both the Quebec government's violent attempts at suppression of the general strike and the federal government giving itself those powers at the federal level.
• amendments/uses of the 107 also align with the privatization program of federal Crown corporations such as Air Canada to protect new shareholders against union interference.

It is used to protect corporate profits in the face of labour. However, the Quebec strikes were a direct result of this kind of aggressive action the government to suppress strikes.

The only answer to the application of this law in what is a clear siding with capital over labour is to resist its application.

Some history of Section 107

• 1946: Rand Formula
• 1962: Doctors strike against universal public medical insurance
• 1971: LaPresse typesetters union lockout by Power Corp. owners.

• 1972: Common Front in Quebec

  • Back-to-work legislation.
  • Violent police response.
  • Organizers sent to prison.
  • Solidarity actions in response.
  • Quebec General Strike, including whole towns shutting down.
• 1973: Bill C-183, establishment of 107 powers. Rail strike.
• 1976: Wage and price controls one day general strike.
• 1982: Deregulation of Airlines
• 1984: Amendments to the CLC.
• 1987: Privatization of Air Canada, rail strike
• 1985-1988: Revisions to the Canada Labour Code in the final Revised Statutes in Canada
• 1995: Privatization of CN Rail

• 1998: Air Canada restructuring and forced opening of CAW agreement.

  • 1999: Bill C-84 reaffirming 107 powers.
  • 2000: Air Canada bought Canadian Airlines