THE WESTERN CANADIAN LUMBER WORKER 3 CO-ORDINATED ACTION VITAL Training, Rate Revision suffer in patchwork bargaining i BY THE REGIONAL OFFICERS ‘ We have said, (see Page 1) “The necessary work of the Union is being hampered by unreasonable obstruction.” We also claim + “that well-tested policies of industry-wide co-ordination and action - on matters of common interest have been obstructed to the disad- |” vantage of the membership as a whole.” “ A Millwrights’ Apprenticeship Training Program was negotiated | and submitted to the Regional Executive Board for approval in ac- * cordance with instructions. A few of those who had formerly agreed - with the progress of such negotiations then adopted methods of | obstruction. The program was not perfect in every respect but the |, outside limit had been reached in negotiations during the contract period and it offered tradesmen substantial benefits. ao The door was open to consideration of ways and means to deal with difficulties encountered but the situation was seized upon for an attack on the Board which stymied any progress. There has been an urgent need for such a program to give tradesmen the opportunity to keep abreast of technological changes. It was an opening wedge to the development of broader training opportunities. Objections then made have been amend- ed under pressure from the tradesmen who see the advantages of such a program. Obstruction has gained nothing for the trades- men affected except needless delay and a damaged bargaining position. i Methods of obstruction employed by those who evidently seek \ office at any cost have hampered revision of category rates in other — fields especially for First Aid Attendants. A continuing rate revision | for new jobs or jobs with a changed content on a regional basis has ® also been obstructed by the stipulation of conditions which are not in accord with policies laid down by the Union. The employers, who have a uniform policy, are taking advantage of the lack of uniform- _~ ity in rates fixed on an operation-by-operation basis. ‘ _ BY THE REGIONAL OFFICERS g In our general statement (on Page 1) we deplored the fact that 1 membership confidence in the Union was being undermined by de- | liberately provoked dissension. This has been found to be-especial- ' ly true in organizing unorganized operations where lumber work- "+ ers have read accusations against the Union appearing in the press. - These accusations lead them to express skepticism about the Union’‘s fight for better wages and conditions. Continued criticism of the settlements made this year reflects on the good judgment of the members who, in each instance, made * the final decisions. Those who opposed the settlements took full | Opportunity to influence the membership to reject the settlements. The results vindicated the advice of the Regional Policy Com- mittee, The majority of the members regarded the settlements as good settlements, and were not to be swayed by any opin- ions expressed by the Regional Officers. The fact was that no one could demonstrate that any of the suggested alternative courses of action would improve the terms proposed. The votes should have ended the debates. The Union stands ta lose by a division of opinion at this stage based on shadowy con- : as to what might or might not have been done to better A CASE IN POINT The recent Kelsey Bay dispute, about which incorrect statements have been made, is a case in point. Prompt attention was given to this dispute by the Regional Officers at the request of Local 1-363 but the fallers and buckers involved were confronted with arrange- ments respecting firefighting equipment already established in the other logging Locals. The incident proved that satisfactory and uni- form category conditions can only be secured through co-operation developed at the regional level. The Regional Officers have no apology to offer for their ad- herence to policies already approved. by the membership and which have brought steady progress in the betterment of mem- bership welfare. Our obligations have required that we act with a sense of responsibility toward the membership and the public in the performance of our duties. WHY REVERSE GOOD POLICY? IWA contracts are now among the best held by industrial unions in Canada. They have been won through the bargaining sfrength based on industry-wide unity of membership. It would be a tragedy for the Union if we abandoned the principle of acting as one Union for one industry. We can conserve and employ our Union’s strength to the best advantage in facing the employers’ well-integrated or- ganization only through industry-wide unification of effort. The major problems which now confront the Union demand this type of unified effort. Job security affected by technological change cannot be successfully protected on a patchwork basis or by mid-contract bargaining on a Local Union basis. Co-ordi- nation to achieve progress with the support of the entire mem- bership, is vitally necessary. Otherwise the employers will be given further opportunities to shirk their responsibilities toward members threatened with displacement. 1964 SETTLEMENTS BEST YET I Members heard all views, their vote settled issues It is always easy to criticize settlements especially when they fall short of the original demands. Experienced negotiators know that they must usually reach a reasonable compromise or invoke the threat of strike action. In each case this year, the settlement pro- posals were made by a Conciliation Officer and required member- ship decision on acceptance or rejection. The employers withheld their acceptance until after the membership voted. Our critics fail to acknowledge that the Regional Officers acted in support of the demands when action was most urgent- ly required to build membership and public pressure as a neces- sary preliminary to a good settlement. All media were used to the fullest extent to accomplish this purpose according to plans approved by the Regional Executive Board. It proved to be a good investment for the membership as otherwise the proposals would have been much less satisfactory. It was the least costly way to get a good settlement. Open criticism now of this expenditure merely emberrasses the Union and limits its ability to use modern techniques in future nego- tiations. It is no longer possible to rely exclusively on “big stick” methods with an “all or nothing” attitude.