New technology, off-shore producers glut market ew conditions challenge autoworkers ada’s auto industry has always en dependent on the U.S. The ship- it of Cars and parts to the U.S. in- sed dramatically in the early 60’s ting in a major debate on the future the Canadian auto industry. The de- -wa@s resolved (for the time being) ¢h the Signing of the Auto Pact in 1965. Canada’s auto industry at that time pended on the U.S. for parts, engines, mping, transmissions, for up to 40 dif- mt Models assembled, exports of gomobiles and parts to the U.S. was nd 10-15 percent. In 1964, Canadian bership in the UAW (the CAW e June 1986, when the Canadian sec- yo left the UAW) was 79,000. The mber Of workers at General Motors approximately 29,000. 1985-86 exports to the U.S. of auto parts had increased to 80 per cent the membership in the Canadian sec- stood at between 130,000 to 140,000. 4 in Canada now employs around 00. But the important new factor y iS the Canadian auto industry’s easing dependence on the U.S., and lhe Steady process of integration with the . auto industry. And the prospects for a full integration of both auto i€s within the next five years. major reason these innovations are being introduced now in North America Is the constantly accelerating competition with the Japanese, Korean, amd European producers. ; In order to survive, North American producers are having to invest in new technology that enables them to better compete. This accompanied by a new system (‘Just In Time System de- veloped by Taiichi Ono at Toyota) that bring parts and supplies to the lines as they are needed. This dramatically re- duces the cost of overhead and jobs that come from storing parts and materials in the factories. : The Achilles heel of this system 1s that the auto companies will need the co-operation of the workers. With this in mind the companies have for the last five years been trying to bring into the plants a whole number of Quality Work Life (QWL) programs to undermine the union. Up to now, most of these pro- grams have failed. Workers with the help of the elected in-plant leadership, soon see through the programs. : But the auto companies are trying de- sperately to find more and more sophisticated programs with new names to try and involve the membership. While the new union-is now Canadian and independent, it is still affected by what happens in the U.S. Here the U.S. transnational auto companies play their nada’s trade figures in automotive products in 1964 were, according to Stats passenger Cars im ex imp 15,138 70.950 3,331 8144 18,469 19,094 1,159,894 148,854 438,463 ere’s even more of a dramatic increase if we look at the parts industry by use of the same Stats Canada source we see; 1964 649,481 73,436 o 11,340,416 85 694,123 1985 17,461,463 comm vehicles total exp 842,977 1,598,357 import-export value ($'000) for each $1 export $9 import for $1 export $1.50 import the time the auto pact was being ted the left and the communists osed that Canada should develop its auto industry and an all-Canadian , They argued there would have been yoimumM dislocation of Canadian auto- yorkers if Canada had opted for an all a Car with only 10-15 per cent of auto exports going to the U.S. at the . Now, given the dependence and int€gration, with the U.S. auto S, ANY move would cause a massive catiOn creating massive layoffs of members. nem the new off-shore producers - OF Stream in 1989, with an addi- al OUtput of 480,000 vehicles, Canada be Producing in the area of 2.1 mil- ars/trucks. the Canadian market is only about 000, with the rest going to the U.S. ich COuld spell trouble for the CAW iid there be a downturn in the U.S. my. New Challenges for the CAW ded to the problem of structural MZ€S and overproduction in the omobile industry, are the use of new lOlOgy, robots, flexible classi- NOMS, and new collaboration pro- like “Quality of Worklife’’ and a © non-union workforce. The trump card — the “‘international” union which is promoting new forms of class collaboration such as agreement with GM around the ‘‘Saturn’’ program. This has already had its effect in Canada in the auto industry. : Part of the agreement is that there will be only two classifications in the plant: TRIBUNE PHOTO — FRED WEIR 5 While the Canadian Auto Workers Union is k nown forits outspoken positions on social issues; changes in the structure of the auto industry Backgrounder John Maclennan one production, and one skilled trades. This change is needed by industry to in- troduce new technology, and robots; and will be used to rationalize production to ensure more work can be done with less workers. This will increase GM profits. Already plants have reduced their classi- fications. American Motors went down from 90 to 25 classification. No one needs to get hung up on the question of classification. For years the trade union movement fought against the division that classifications fostered be- tween workers to the advantage of the boss. The question is: in whose interest should the reduction of classifications be carried out? In each plant classifications mean different things. Flexible Classifications In GM St. Catharines, some workers are concerned that elimination of some classifications will put an extra burden on older workers. In GM Scarborough, a newer plant with a young worker force, some workers feel a number of classi- fications should be eliminated because classifications in the past have served to protect the favorites of the foremen. Another reason motivating manage- ment to introduce flexible classifications is their need for flexibility to introduce the ““Team’’ concept. This concept is now being introduced in the big Oshawa GM plant, and is part of the agreement with CAW and GM/Suzuki that will be built in Ingersol. This concept has worked well for the corporations in Swe- den and Japan and gives workers a whole number of jobs to work on rather than just the same boring, repetitive one. A new challenge CAW will face is a growing unorganized section of auto- workers, a situation this union has not had to face since the early 30s. This chal- lenge comes from the fast-growing Canada auto parts industry and some whose aim is to operate in a union-free environment. Most notable of these is Magna International, who now have a workforce of 9,600 members. Fed on juicy government handouts and tax breaks, this company has combined smart business practices with a careful selection of its workforce to stop unionization. The Japanese and Korean producers Bs FREE TRADE are also aiming to come to Canada and to conduct their operations without having to contend with the CAW. An exception to this is the agreement between GM/Suzuki and CAW for the new Ingersol plant. It’s clear that an unor- ganized workforce in the auto industry will not only hold back autoworkers but, all workers in Canada. While there is a crisis of over- production coming to the Canadian and | U.S. auto industry that will result in thousands of layoffs of autoworkers, there is at the same time a systematic introduction of new technology which will ensure that some of those workers laid off will never be recalled to their jobs. Most people think the introduction of — new technology means robots will take away their jobs, but there’s more. Here is a list from the research department of the — UAW International *“‘Technology and Jobs’’ 1985 research bulletin. Computer Assisted Design and Engineering (CAD, CAE) replaces much of the traditional design, drafting and engineering analysis procedures. - Automatic Guided Vehicles (AGVs) are replacing material transport systems, .such as forklift trucks, and the assembly line. Automated Storage and Retrieval _ (ASR) are replacing traditional storage facilities and warehouses — only the computer knows where an item is stored. Machine Sensing Technologies are giving robots and other automated equipment “‘vision’’ and ‘‘touch’? — quality control, assembly, and process- : ing functions are affected. Programmable Controller allow for the flexible interconnection of automated machines, robots, and material-handling — systems into Flexible Manufacturing Cells (FMCs) Computer Networking and' its standardization, are speeding the ar- rival of the Computer Integrated Manu- facturing (CIM). Networking allows the linking of CAD, FMC ASR etc., and is often referred to as CAD/CAM. As you can see, there’s a lot more to be concerned about than just the introduc- tion of robots in plants and offices. These new technological innovations are not going to be restricted to the auto indus- try, they will be introduced to all manu- facturing industry in Canada. The same research bulletin reports: the cost of computer equipment prices are falling as performance increases. Robot costs are now in the neighborhood of $6 (US) an hour and payback periods are in the 2-3 year range. Next week: Off-shore producers; The union response; The communist and Left response. as call for new sophisticated answers to workers needs. _ PACIFIC TRIBUNE, SEPTEMBER 24, 1986 e 7