LABOR Concessions shot down at building trades meet By MIKE PHILLIPS NIAGARA FALLS — On- tario’s organized construction workers, Nov. 2 angrily rejected the blueprint for concessions being pushed by the contractors and the U.S.-appointed leaders of the international building trades unions in Canada. “We don’t need the anointed and appointed Maple Leaf Club, that’s out of touch with reality, telling us what to do about ensur- ing our future’’, George Ward of the Sheetmetal Workers union told delegates to the Ontario Building and Construction Trades Council convention, Nov. 2-3. Ward, the business manager for the Sheetmetal Workers provin- cial council, spoke for a lot of del- egates as he condemned ‘‘Ensur- ing our Future”’ a booklet jointly produced and endorsed by the Canadian Construction Associa- tion and six of the top ‘‘anointed and appointed”’ Canadian leaders of the U.S.-based international building trades unions. “Ensuring our Future’? which he described as ‘‘the biggest piece of garbage I’ve ever read’’, pro- poses wholesale cuts in wages, benefits and working conditions in the organized building trades supposedly to protect members’ jobs from the growing number of non-union contractors. But for the more than 230 dele- gates to the annual building trades convention, the answer they wanted was-a militant fight against concessions and a vigo- rous drive to organize the unor- ganized. No one summed up what the delegates were thinking better than Ward, as he went after the Canadian officers for not fighting concessions and for negotiating national in-plant maintenance agreements loaded with conces- sions. ““We should demand that they retract their names from ‘Ensur- ing our Future’ because they’re selling out our future. The only thing they give a damn about is the per capita tax that keeps them in their fat ass jobs’’; he said to a stormy ovation. By an overwhelming vote, the provincial convention backed a resolution endorsing the Ontario executive board’s unanimous op- position and condemnation of the concessions plan, and demanded that the six leaders who signed the booklet retract their endorsation. The vote and the criticism of the leadership were significant because provincial councils such as Ontario’s and the one in B.C., are rare platforms within the building trades structure from which rank and file workers can express their views and help to shape policy. The convention reflected the growing strength of the fightback mood at the grass roots and this was demonstrated again with the election of Ontario plumbers’ leader Trevor Byrne to replace president Barry Fraser who didn’t seek another term. Fraser, who with five other executive members in his electri- cians’ local in Hamilton, is locked in a fight over concessions with Ken Rose, Canadian vice-presi- dent of the International Brother- hood of Electrical Workers, and a signatory to ‘‘Ensuring our Fu- ture’’. Fraser has been a persis- tent and consistent opponent of concessions and an advocate of Canadian autonomy for the build- ing trades. He’s also campaigned for their total re-integration into the Canadian Labor Congress. As such, he and the council under his leadership have been a thorn in the establishment’s side and it was no secret at the conven- tion that powerful forces had been plotting and twisting arms to re- move him from office. They hoped to behead the opposition to their leadership by removing the popular president. However, the establishment was foiled again. Byrne, who heads the Ontario Pipe Trades Council, has also been an out- spoken fighter for Canadian auto- nomy and an opponent of conces- sions who’s regarded as an effec- tive spokesman for the rank and file. In his address to the conven- tion, Fraser focussed on the need for unity in the trades at the bar- gaining table against concessions and the need to fight non-union contractors by organizing the un- organized. Free trade with the U.S. and the federal Tory government’s passion for de-regulation, he warned, would ravage social pro- grams and regulatory standards such as health and safety laws, while paving the way for the total sell out of the country to the U.S. Fraser also re-iterated the Canadian construction workers’ 1 onl «mt! OME. CALL OTHERS CALL IT (And the critics ask:"Is Brian a genius, or Jost schizophrenic 2’) aint what <_e SS - = = SS SSax, ART occa Hoch TRADE. demand for a national charter for the building trades and went on to propose the re-unification of the trades with the Canadian Labor Congress and the possible estab- lishment of a CLC building trades department. He concluded with an appeal to construction workers to join in the struggle for disarmament and — peace. “Our agreements, juris- — dictional problems and so on will — mean nothing if our world is de- — stroyed by nuclear war ... Let’s | all hope that the Summit between — the U.S. and USSR in Geneva — will result in constructive de- — tente.”” Chrysler workers owed their share By ED McDONALD On August 3 1979, Chrysler Corpora- tion president Lee Iaccoca addressed the committee at Chrysler and sought sup- port for a two-year moratorium on in- creased wages and benefits. In the six years that followed, the workers experienced reduced living standards and tens of thousands of lay- offs. Chrysler, one of the top 10 U.S. corporations, during this period be- nefited from billions of dollars of tax- payers’ money, both in the U.S. and in Canada, disguised as tax credits, but in essence interest free loans. In the same period, the international- ization of capital and of production in- creased considerably, particularly in countries like Britain, France, Sweden, Japan and the U.S. Chrysler, for exam- ple, recently increased its holdings in the company Mitsubishi. Much has been written in the capitalist press about the ‘‘miracle’’ created by laccoca, a potential Democratic Party candidate in the next U.S. presidential election, wherein Chrysler surpassed Ford and General Motors in profits and production. Super-Profitable Corporation Victor Perlo, a world-renowned Communist economist, writing in the Sept. 21 issue of World Magazine, used data from Chrysler annual and quarterly United Auto Workers master negotiating. reports and other financial reference material, to single out the real creator of the corporation’s massive profits and in- creased productivity. Perlo pointed out that, ‘‘Chrysler has become by far the most profitable of the super-profitable Big Three auto com- panies. It is one of the most profitable among all large U.S. industrial corpora- tions.”’ In 1984, Chrysler workers created $2.38-billion in net profits after taxes, which amounted to 107 per cent of the average stock-holders’ equity of $2.224-billion for the year. By any economist’s standards such a rate of re- turn on investment is virtually unheard of. In the first half of this year, its profits were up 31.5 percent over the first half of 1984. On the basis of such experience, it is estimated that its 1985 net, after taxes, will be around $1.8-billion to $2-billion. an incredible bonanza for the faceless stockholders, with the likelihood that Iaccoca, who received in excess of $4- million last year, may hit the even $5-mil- lion mark this year. One has to ask the question: What ac- counts for Chrysler’s soaring profits? As stated by Perlo, “‘the main factor is the spectacular rise in workers’ pro- ductivity, supplemented by the wage and benefit concessions extracted by the company, and by lower wages paid to workers in Mexico and Canada.”’ Backgrounder In 1980 productivity per worker was 10.2 vehicles. In 1982 it was 12.7, in 1983 it was 15.4 while in 1984 it was 18.1, an increase of 77 per cent per worker, far more than both G.M. and Ford. Chrysler-2, Workers-1 When these figures are carried through to their final conclusion, the figure of 18.1 vehicles per worker means that each production worker accounts for about 24. vehicles per year, or 2 per month. So, each worker accounts for something like $20,000 per month, or $240,000 per year. Allowing for Chrysler’s statement that 61.2 cents of every dollar of sales goes to suppliers, it means that each production worker still contributes $93,000 of value added to Chrysler’s annual product. In 1984, U.S. auto workers were only paid one-third of the total value they created. The average annual wage in the sector employing most Chrysler work- ers, for example, was $32,284. So for every $3 of value Chrysler workers added to the product, they got $1 and the corporation kept $2. Chrysler Corporation, like others, never publishes its gross profits. But as Perlo noted, ‘‘they can be partially esti- mated from figures it does provide. Here is a minimum calculation for 1984 in mil- lions of dollars: Operating earnings, $2,430; Taxes, $432; Interest, $132; Re- search and development, $452; Selling and administrative expenses, $988: De- preciation, $272; Revenues of Chrysler Financial Corporation, $793. The total is $5,499 millions.”’ Chipping Away Out of their creative and productive labor, Chrysler workers created $5.5-bil- lion in gross profits. Perlo concluded that from these colos- sal profits, ‘‘could come a 30-hour week with no overtime and increased weekly pay; hiring an additional 50,000 workers to provide the additional hours worked by the present workforce; and sub- stantial improvements in all fringe be- nefits, which Chrysler has been chipping away.” Is Chrysler unique in its profit experi- ence for 1984? One would have to answer yes as it relates to the ‘‘Big Three’’, but by no stretch of the imagination is it un- ique relative to the corporations in the metallurgical, chemical, mining and other industries. As Canadian trade unionists head into provincial labor federation conventions, leading to next April’s Canadian Labor Congress convention, it behooves us to struggle economically and politically for the shorter work week, improved wages, and fringe benefits, and greater control over the introduction and benefits of technological change — all as a contri- bution to putting Canada’s two million unemployed back to work. L. 6 © PACIFIC TRIBUNE, NOVEMBER 13, 1985 _