~ Canadian rail union

merger needed—CBRT

By CHARLES LUTZ

In an impressive and enthus-
iatic show of “Canada first”
sentiment—sprinkled with scat-
_ tered attacks against U.S. en-
croachment in Canadian affairs
—the delegates of the Canadian
Brotherhood of Railway and
Transport and General Workers
special Convention last weekend
in Montreal’s Hotel Bonaventure
overwhelmingly rejected a pow-
erful bid from their top leader-
ship to initiate merger negotia-
tions between the 30,000 member
CBRT and the 180,000 member
Brotherhood of Railway, Airline
and Steamship Clerks based in
Cincinnatti, constantly referred
to as “BRAC” throughout the
Convention.

At the 1967 CBRT Convention
in Ottawa, a policy statement
recommending the unification of
railway labor in Canada was en-
dorsed. Since then, in spite of
several advances made to other
Canadian unions to initiate dis-
cussions, nothing materialized.
The CBRT men have not lost
hope for one all-Canada indus-
trial union in the railways, but
last week-end they showed that
any attempt to merge for the
sake of “bigness” with a huge
U.S. union whose leadership’s
stand on Vietnam makes Thieu
and Ky gleefully rub their hands
and whose constitution threat-
2ns with. expulsion any member
having connections with anti-

LABOR SCENE

By Bruce Magnuson

establishment political organiza-
tions, will be soundly defeated.

“Tll give it to you short and
sweet,” said a delegate from
local 400, Vancouver, “if you de-
cide to go into BRAC, we won’t
go with you!”

Speaker after speaker came to
the mikes and gave hell to the
leadership’s proposal: amend the
Constitution in order that mer-
ger parleys could be initiated
with BRAC.

“Let the National Executive
Board go back to the track and
organize the unorganized if they
are looking for bigness,’ said
Rietta Fisher, local 270 Ottawa.
Attractive sister Fisher, who had
started her intervention by
blushingly admitting she was

» very nervous, this being the first

time she had spoken in public,
got a standing ovation as she
regained her seat.

Strong language was used by
quite a few delegates opposing
the proposed amendment. There
were talks of
“pork chop”, “muscle men of
the international unions”; there
were catcalls and heckling. But
burning issues were also force-
fully nailed to the Convention
walls.

“We are very concerned about
the U.S. take-over of our coun-
try,” said a frequently applauded
trade-unionist. “We are very
concerned about American pro-
fessors creeping into our univer-

“prostitution”,

sities!”

“If we reject this merger bid,”’
said another delegate, “we will
be telling 20 million people we
believe in Canada and can man-
age our own affairs.” :

“This idea of - bigness,” said
young Jim Hunter, NEB member
opposing the proposed amend-
ment, “is as dead now as the
American take-over of our econ-
omy from now on!”

The three-pronged proposal
from the National Executive
Board of the CBRT to the Con-
vention was quickly disposed of
by a vote of 305 to 61 against its

first part, causing the second day.

of the Convention to adjourn two
hours after it started.

Things had started roughly for
W. J. Smith, president of CBRT.
A few delegates rose to insist
that in his opening address he
wouldn’t go over the generally
allotted speaking time of five
minutes. Smith finally managed
to finish his opening remarks
after a few interruptions, boos
and catcalls.

“There are no good guys and
no bad guys in this issue,” said
he at one point. Loud boos an-
swered him.

“Have you ever stated,” in-

quired a delegate, “that you had .

the authority to order a merger?”
“Never to my knowledge...
Of course, I don’t deny ever hav-
ing said it in my sleep.”
“You sleep pretty soundly,

“YOU'VE BEEN
SHORT-CHANGING
ME, BUBL_

Bill, don’t you?”

“Yes sir, I have a clean con-
science.”’ (Boos, hoots, catcalls,
heckling).

As the first few hours of the
Convention crept forward, we
could sense a developing anti-
U.S. take-over sentiment in all
spheres of activity. About a third
of the delegates had come wav-
ing tiny Maple Leaf flags and
sporting anti-merger buttons. As
speaker after speaker came for-
ward to denounce the “plunge
into the BRAC stream” more and
more delegates swung their
position to the fiercely Canadian
group. And the results of the
vote attest to that. :

A. few extreme aspects 0
“Canada first’ sentiment were

quickly obscured by this on a
big. positive fact we can i;
proud of: complete unity g
pose between the coast+t?
English Canadian and ‘
delegations, including not di
black workers and Ament it

This historical CBRT Cot ig
tion should come as 4
to further U.S. encroachm
wide-ranging Canadian ® 3
It unmistakably points sy
growing sense of Canadian
tity merging all Canadian
ers, cutting across the
tions and all ethnic group
underlines also the urgent
for genuine mergers on @ —
dian basis throughout ine
ways, transport and ass0
trades.

en

Sa

Wage gains ina

equate

The attempt to impose govern-

ment-employer “guidelines” to
restrict wages has finally crumb-

led in the construction industry,
despite lockouts, and even boss-
es’ picketlines. This has led to
new attempts to spread the com-
pletely false and _ unscientific
idea that the main fuel for infla-
tion is the large increases in
wages for union labor.

The Globe and Mail in an edi-

torial article of June 10th tried -

to fan this idea when it stated
that the top legal minimum wage
in the country, $1.55 for con-
struction workers, is just 5 cents
more than the wage increase
which Metro Toronto electricians
won in a new contract, and 16
cents less than the package won,
if fringe benefits are included. It
mentioned construction labor
getting a minimum of $162 by
November 1, 1970, and compared
this to the operating room techni-
cian at Hamilton Civic Hospitals
who receives $86 a week.

But Jack McArthur in the Tor-
onto Daily Star, May 27, 1969,
points, up a case where a com-
pany made a study of the wage
factor after a big wage increase,
and found “that within six
months, increased productivity
had made up for the whole in-
crease’ in “labor. costs ‘over 'théi

period of the new contract,
which was for more than two
years.” The columnist goes on
to state: “This is an actual case.
It illustrates one of the fallacies
about inflation which the new
federal Prices and Incomes Com-
mission should help dispel. It is
the widely held idea that the
main fuel for inflation is the large
increase in wages for union
labor.”

It is true that Metro construc-
tion laborers will receive $162
per week for 40 hours work by
Nov. 1, 1970. Metro electricians
will get $248 for a 37!4-hour
work week. British Columbia
plumbers have won $1.48 in
wages. and 3514 cents per hour
in fringe benefits for a one-year
contract.

It is also-true federal mini-
mum wage law calls for $1.25
per hour, and that 23.5 of Can-
ada’s bank employees earned
less than this minimum in 1965.
In Newfoundland the current
minimum wage rate is $1.10 for
men and 85 cents for women. In
1967, it was 70 cents for men
and 50 cents for women.
Even in Ontario the gen-
eral legal minimum wage rate
will go up to $1.30 by next Octo-
ber, and the rate in construction

* will ibe $1.55. The question is,

PACIFIC TRIBUNE—JUNE 20, 1969—Page 4

why should these ridiculous
rates and the resultant poverty
be the basis for organized labor’s
struggle to keep up with mono-
poly-rigged prices, rents, taxes,
and zooming living costs gener-
ally?

The facts are, that even the
highest paid workers are not
able to keep pace with escalat-
ing living costs. Let us examine
the facts.

A worker with a wife and two
children, and drawing weekly
gross pay of $161.20 in 1965,
paid $21.10 in income tax, 94
cents for Unemployment Insur-
ance, $1.62 for Ont. Hosp. Ins.
for a total of $23.66 in weekly
deductions, leaving a weekly
take home pay of $137.54.

This same worker, by April
1969, with a gross pay of $175.88
per week, paid $33.30 for income
tax, $1.40 for Unemployment
Ins., $2.75 for Ont. Hosp. Ins.,
and $1.72 for the Canada Pen-
sion Plan. Total deductions,
therefore, came to a total of
$39.17, leaving a net weekly take
home pay of $136.71 for family
of four, or 83cents less per week
than in August of 1965.

But that is not all. These are
monetary wages received after
deductions have been made. But
what about real wages—or buy-
ing power? :

From Aug. 1965 to January
1969 the official cost of living in-
dex rose by 19 points. At 5 cents
per point, our worker now needs

95 cents per hour increase in-,

take home pay to regain August
1965 buying power. This would
mean monetary take home pay
of $173.16 net, in order to equal
the buying power of $137.54 in
1965.

But more than that. Income
tax deductions now would be
$57.95 per week, instead of
$21.10 in 1965. Unemployment

‘Insurance deduction would be

$1.40, instead of 94 cents. Ontar-
io. Hospital Insurance is _now
$2.81, instead of $1.62—an in-
crease of $1.19 per week in four
years. The Canada Pension Plan
has also been added at a weekly
deduction of $1.76, for a weekly

total of $63.92 in payroll deduc- .

tions.

What this means is that this
same worker now would need a
wage increase of $1.95 per hour
for a net take home pay of
$175.12. This would give our
worker a gain over requirements
to break even as of last January
3lst. This gain, however, having
been totally wiped out by June,
1969.

Who, therefore, suffers from
inflation? It is obvious the work-
ers are the ones who carry the

"1968, Stelco’s profits Wel as)

main burden of inflation.
This also applies to we
farmers. The price of wee
increased lately. But only oot
per pound goes to the e oe
while the packers take 5 chal
cent of the gain and the © 4
stores a general minimum Meh
up of 20 to 30 percent st
means that if the price of ef
or rump roast goes’ up ofl!
per pound, the farmer ge i
one-fifth of this, while the ?
ers and the retailers take © |
fifths of the increase. dit’
But in general, Calg
manufacturers anticipate gf
will do better than last ye
percent increase in pro

‘a

=
Ss =
=>

percent above 1967 pre

Wage costs per unit of om
are down roughly 20 perce?”
year. > dt”
In the past 15 years PH ct
tivity in Canadian manul
ing has increased «by 72.3 i
cent, compared to 51 perc?) 9
the U.S.A., or a differen af
21.3 percent. This explain” yy)
wage parity is an irresistl “el
mand today, and why po?
must be erased.
Monopoly price riggin
with government trans!®
funds from the poor to the
and monopoly profiteering ~
culprit in the inflation p

a

g a