recall

Steelmaker promises back pay for workers whose layoffs its US owner blamed on tariffs, weak demand and imports.

Canadian steelmaker Stelco says it will recall all 175 workers laid off at its plant in Hamilton and pay them retroactively, following a weeks-long standoff that pitted workers and the Canadian government against its owner in the United States.

The announcement on Friday came shortly after Canada’s Industry Minister Melanie Joly said she would seek a court order to force Cleveland-Cliffs to sell Stelco unless she heard from management by the end of the day.

The company said in a statement on Friday that it had reached agreements with enough customers to restart its finishing operations and that workers would be recalled on December 1. They would receive back pay for the standard wages they would have earned while laid off.

The president of United Steelworkers Local 1005, Ron Wells, welcomed the announcement and credited pressure from workers, the union and the government.

At a news conference, he called the layoffs “illegal” and “immoral” which should never have happened.

Alongside him was Joly, who said the outcome sent a message to investors that Canada was “a country of the rule of law and that the law applies to everyone, notwithstanding the size of your wallet.”

“This fight was absolutely worth it,” she said.

Cleveland-Cliffs, which bought Stelco in 2024, announced in late September that up to 500 workers would be laid off at Stelco’s plants in Hamilton and Nanticoke, Ontario, citing weak demand and difficult market conditions for cold-rolled and coated steel products used to make everything from cars to appliances.

It blamed US President Donald Trump’s tariffs on Canadian steel, which made it more expensive in the US, as well as competition from cheaper foreign steel, which it argued was eating into domestic demand for Canadian steel.

Ottawa said the layoffs violated binding commitments the company made when it bought Stelco, including keeping the same number of Canadian unionised employees through 2029.

The government and the union also argued that Cleveland-Cliffs’ CEO Lourenco Goncalves violated a commitment to advocate for policies that would benefit the steel industries in both Canada and the US when he publicly supported Trump’s tariffs on steel, including Canada’s.

Goncalves’ open support for the tariffs raised questions, given that he also blamed them for Stelco’s financial troubles.

In its statement, Cleveland-Cliffs said its customers had committed to supporting its operations in Hamilton “despite the lack of response from the federal government to address the shortfalls in their tariff response program.”

It didn’t provide details on the agreements it had reached with customers or explain what had changed to make restarting operations viable.

Cleveland-Cliffs did not respond to a request for comment.

Two California governors faced recall in the last 30 years.

In 2021, Gavin Newsom survived an effort to recall him amid the COVID-19 pandemic. But in 2003, Gray Davis was ousted from office and replaced by Arnold Schwarzenegger.

Now, voters will consider significant changes to recall rules for elected state officials.

The basics

Under current law, when an elected official is recalled in California, the election for their replacement occurs at the same time. Proposition 5 breaks up that process into two parts, prioritizing the voters’ right to oust an official before selecting a replacement.

The impact

This ballot measure would amend the state constitution to change the current recall system. Under the proposed changes, voters would first be asked to choose whether or not to oust an official. Then, in the event of a recall, the official would be replaced by appointment, succession or special election at a later date. In the case of a special election, the former officeholder could run again.

The measure also would designate California’s lieutenant governor as the de facto replacement for a recalled governor until the next term.

Dig deeper

California’s rules for recalling politicians date to the Progressive era and were seen at the time as a way to give more power to voters.

But there have been concerns in recent years that the process needs reform, especially after the 2021 recall that Newsom overwhelmingly beat back; it cost local and state governments more than $200 million.

After the Newsom recall failed, the Legislature began a bipartisan task force to suggest changes.

More reading

California’s costly, confusing recall sparks an effort to rethink the rules (L.A. Times, 2021)

The history of recalls in California (L.A. Times)

The Little Hoover Commission on recall reform (State of California)