From June 1 until August 28, the largest union local in Sudbury, Local 6500 of the Steelworkers, was on strike against the international nickel mining corporation INCO. Local 6500 represents INCO’s 3,300 production and maintenance workers in Sudbury. This strike which involved thousands of workers could have had a major impact in rebuilding a militant union movement. Instead it stands as an example of how not to organize a strike. Those interested in better approaches to organizing strike action in Sudbury can turn to the Mine Mill/CAW Local 598 strike against Falconbridge in 2000-2001 (Gary Kinsman, “Mine Mill: Militancy and Solidarity Wins A Limited Victory,” New Socialist, No. 29, March/April 2001).

On August 28 members voted by only 62.3% to accept the new contract that was unanimously presented by the union bargaining committee. Many young members opposed the contract stating that there was not much there for them. While there were some gains for pensioners and regarding health benefits, many workers felt that the strike had been orchestrated by INCO to save money and to allow maintenance work to get done. It is estimated that workers lost an average of $12,000 each during the strike. Many workers said they were not happy with the contract but felt they had no alternative but to vote for it given the difficult financial circumstances they faced.

Cathy Mulroy, an INCO employee and 30 year member of Local 6500 called the contract a “step backwards” given that the strike was convenient for INCO in saving on the costs of wages, insurance and compensation payments. Like other workers she felt like she was “railroaded” to accept the deal by the bargaining committee and the media who presented the tentative agreement as a done deal.

The Issues

To get more insight into the dynamics of the strike I talked to union member, Cathy Mulroy, in late August before the settlement was reached. She told me that a central issue was “the take-away in pensioners benefit packages.” This was an issue “because the pensioners are not in the bargaining unit and don’t have a say.” Mulroy pointed out that “There was an agreement years ago that pensioners would get any new benefits that were negotiated but there was never anything agreed to about takeaways.” She said that “INCO has been crying about how much it spends on benefits - my response to them is to get a different insurance company.”

Another important issue was Job Transfer Rights. As Mulroy points out, INCO “does not want people to move around and bid on different jobs. People therefore can’t grow and will stagnate. At the same time that bosses are sent around the world and given a sense of the broad spectrum of what the company does they want to deny this to the workers. The hourly rate workers may want to move to other jobs, to expand their knowledge. Who wants to do the same job for 30 years.”

The current leadership of Local 6500 is a moderate to conservative boy’s club and there have been only a few exceptions to this since the significant left grouping that organized the 1978-1979 strike against INCO was isolated and defeated in the early 1980s. In 1997 the Local 6500 leadership stacked meetings of the Labour Council to ensure that the body would not support the Sudbury Days of Action against the Harris regime.

In the lead up to this strike Mulroy stated “what was our leadership thinking. Did they not expect a strike or did they think it would only last a few days. This meant that the membership was not prepared. We did not realize that INCO was preparing to wait us out. The company could get a lot of its maintenance work done during the strike. INCO did not hire scabs so this did not become an organizing focus.”

In evaluating the strike Mulroy said “I am disappointed that there has not been more organizing for rallies and for question and answer periods with the members. The people who are experiencing difficulties and have concerns need to be able to get answers. The union leaders might not want to bear the brunt of member’s anger but they have to deal with the people who are suffering. Many did not get vacation pay for July or August as the company claimed. Young people who are lowest in terms of seniority would never get vacations in July or August. Maybe only 1,000, or about one-third of the workers, may have been able to have vacations scheduled in July or August. Meanwhile INCO has been doing lots of maintenance work and saved on benefits and wages. They are not losing money since the maintenance work had to be done and they always wait until the last minute to fix things. There used to be regular shutdowns in the summer. We haven’t had a summer shutdown since the last contract.”

The Court Injunction

When the strike started workers picketing at the gates were stopping everything from going in and this was effective in disrupting the maintenance and operations of INCO. INCO then went to court and managed to get a court injunction preventing the stopping of vehicles at the lines As Mulroy points our “Of course they got the injunction with the laws as they are now.” Demoralization set in among many of the rank-and-file workers as numbers on the lines dwindled, especially since no other major tactics or strategies to win the strike were put forward. But as Mulroy points out “there are other things that could have been done after the injunction was granted. We could have had more people on the lines and done organizing in the community. We could have done work through the media and through public community rallies of support. But the union leadership acted like it was summer and people should go to camp.”

There was also work needing to be done for the members of the local and their families who were experiencing hardship. As Mulroy points out “for people with little money who were still paying for their car or house there are lots of problems. I feel especially bad for the young people.” As she put it “the community is also suffering” since the strike had a significant impact on the local economy and social support systems.

Mulroy thought that the strike could still have been turned around. She pointed out that “committees need to be set up with lots of volunteers to deal with people in danger of losing their housing, dealing with the banks around mortgages and car payments, helping people get around town. We also need to mobilize people.” Information and participation is crucial as Mulroy stressed but the leadership believes that “keeping people ignorant is a way of controlling people.” People also need to be educated “as to how much money INCO is making around the world as an international corporation.” Mulroy stressed the “need to keep people involved.”

The most significant mobilizations of community support for the strike were organized by the Women’s Committee of the local. I was at an early community support rally in June at the main smelter gate in Copper Cliff which had about 200 people at it throughout the afternoon. This meant that the Local 6500 leadership made no attempt to mobilize its membership for this event. As Mulroy pointed out the leadership “does not want people to mobilize community support.” Later the Women’s Committee of Local 6500 started doing weekly spaghetti or beans and weaners lunches for up to 500 people. These were good initiatives but as Mulroy points out they were also “women’s work” and did not challenge the gender division of labour between men and women in the union or the community.

INCO and the Steelworker leadership had adopted a perspective of collaboration between INCO and the union which was supposed to lead to higher profits for INCO and to benefits for the workers. This rhetoric led to a disorientation of many workers so that they were not prepared for this kind of strike. As Mulroy points out “many years ago INCO brought in team-work and ideas of collaboration which the leadership of the union also bought into. They brought it in as concepts on paper that we could work together. But nothing has really changed. Workers and the company don’t have the same agenda. Workers are interested in meeting their needs and the needs of their families. INCO is interested in production and making a buck. Our thoughts and needs are not the same so how can we have collaboration. Collaboration is working with the enemy. It is a dirty word.”

Collaboration is a dirty word

One of the union leaders made a comparison between the current strike and the long strike by the same local in 1978-79 against INCO that finally ended in victory for the workers. But as Mulroy, who was actively involved in the 1978-1979 strike, responded they “are not the same and there is really no comparison at all. In that strike the leadership kept the membership informed. Wives Supporting the Strike was formed and played an important part in the struggle. Now it is a different situation since not all the women only work in the home. In 1978-79 connections were made with unions throughout the whole country.” The 1978-79 strike led to support mobilizations across the Canadian state which made INCO one of the most hated companies in the country and through the development of Wives Supporting the Strike led to the emergence of women’s centres and a great deal of community organizing that altered the social and political landscape in Sudbury.