Betty Ambatielor, noted leader in the international campaign against
the ruling junta in Greece, is in Vancouver this week as part of a
Canadian tour to gain support for Greek political prisoners. Her
husband, Tony, well-known to many in this province, was arrested
along with two other trade union and Communist leaders in February

and is being held incommunicado by the junta.

—Sean Griffin photo

Building industry talks

Cont'd from pg. 1

their joint demands that ‘‘in ad-
dition to the wage package a cost of
living clause to provide protection
against continued inflation during
the term of the agreement be
agreed on. :

The unions have also demanded
a reduction in the regular hours of
work to 35 per week, with the
reduction to be either a shorter
work day or a shorter work week,
with consideration to be given to
the best solution for out-of-town
projects.

Some construction unions, who
have large numbers of unem-
ployed, see the shorter work week
as a means of alleviating the
situation. The plumbers’ union has
pointed to the fact that of its 3,700
B.C. members 600 are registered
for work and have not been able to
get work for the past 10 months.

The building unions are also:

demanding three additional
holidays plus increases in annual
holiday and vacation pay. An issue
on which construction workers feel
strongly is metropolitan area
parking. They have demanded that
where on-job parking is not

available that the employer
provide parking within three city
blocks of the job site at no cost to
the employees working on the
project.

Building unions are also
demanding that employers
signatory to the Building Trades
Collective Agreements undertake
not to engage in other business or
financial interests in the con-
struction industry in B.C. which
are operating on a non-union basis.
This is to eliminate “dummy”
companies being formed by con-
tractors to get around union
agreements.

ELECTRICAL WORKERS

AGAINST

We
STRIKE

By SEAN GRIFFIN

If the mining industry in British
Columbia hoped to push its 14,000-
odd employees into an opposition
Stance on the provincial govern-
ment’s proposed Bill 31 — the
Mineral Royalties Act — a recent
pamphlet issued by the United
Steelworkers must have dashed
those hopes — as well as provide

“some effective answers to the
statements made by the mine
owners.

Not unexpectedly, mining
companies operating in this
province responded swiftly to the
announcement of Bill 31 with a
multi-thousand dollar advertising
campaign aimed at soliciting
public support against the
government proposed new
royalties. At the heart of the
campaign, of course, were con-
cerns over profits that. had been
escalating briskly in resource-rich
BiG? & ;

It was not a particularly new
concern since the mining industry
protested vigorously against the
recommendations in the Carter
Report on taxation — which
proposed among other things, the
abolition of depletion allowances
and the institution of a capital
gains tax — and later in 1968 when
premier Bennett raised. resource
taxes from 10 to 15 per cent. The
companies’ anti-royalty campaign
this time round differs only in
intensity.

In countering the warnings of the
mining industry of the imminent
collapse of mining in B.C. in the
event that Bill 31 passes into law,
the USWA poses the question:
“Will the people of B.C. get evena
share of the huge windfall profits
from inflated metal prices and the
mining out of their irreplaceable
natural resources or do the mining
Corporations, mostly multinational
and largely foreign-owned, con-
tinue to reap a harvest of greater
and greater profits. . . greater
than ever before. . . leaving
behind in ten or fifteen years,
ghosts towns, broken hopes and
holes in the ground?”

It’s a question that a lot of people
in this province— and elsewhere —
have been asking for a long time.

While the USWA Study doesn’t
outline the extent of foreign
ownership and control, both are
worth considering, particularly in
view of the long term interest of the
people of this province,

Electrical workers set up picket lines outside Dominion Construction site in Richmond Wednesday as

construction employers sit tight in first round of building trades negotiations.

—Lawrence photo.

In gq touching display of
patriotism, the mining companies
assert that 60% of the industry is
owned by Canadians “‘from all
walks of life — people who had the
courage to invest their money in a
high risk venture.”

But nothing is said about control !

by which decisions are made to

shut mines down, accelerate |

production or any other decisive
aspects.

A prospector in Lytton or an
engineer at UBC might hold shares
in any given company but neither
exercises any control. They
probably don’t even go to the an-
nual general meeting. And in a
huge company like Consolidated
Mining and Smelting, which is
ostensibly Canadian-owned, the
control has traditionally been

The only way he mice Ke
they say is if he gets ca
run of muck or backfill. Bett
the rotten conditions pre iy
many B.C. mines, 49 mine i
died in the last three yeal® p
'

how much concern for
ployees the mining col
have. aa
In fact, according to thé wh
report of the provincial”
ment of mines, the en?
provided is something less™
companies would have
believe. The number of
employed by. the maj®
mining companies survey
department dropped in 197
from the previous yeal 55 oq
6,658. It rose only slightly @%

| 1972 — the year when foul

exercised by closely held British

shares.
In addition, of the multi-million
dollar mining operations that have

started production in the last |

decade, most are foreign-owned
and controlled, operations like
Granduc copper which is
dominated by Newmont (U.S.) and
American Refining and Smelting
and the molybdenum mine at Alice
Arm owned by Kennecot Copper.

On the question of mining in-
vestment and the warnings of the
companies that Bill 31 will cause
investment to “dwindle away and
collapse” the USWA study
presents some revealing in-
formation that the mining com-
panies have significantly neglected
to mention.

In a study prepared by the
chartered accountants’ firm of
Price, Waterhouse and Company
and commissioned by the B.C.
Metal Mining Association in 1971,
the USWA notes, investment
projections for the years 1973-76
amounted to only 14% of the in-
vestment for the previous four
years — or an 86% drop in
projected investment.

Why? The USWA study points
out that the massive investment —
amounting to some $731,321,000 —
in the years 1969-72 inclusive, was
used to prepare new mines for
production. Those mines are now
producing and, in the words of the
Steelworkers, ‘‘the harvest of
profits from production is on.”

In other words, the mining
companies had already projected a
drastic reduction in investment for
the years following 1972 — two
years before Leo Nimsick had even
considered Bill 31. As well, the first
drive of production of the newly-
developed mines was roughly con-
current with the upward advance
of metal prices.

What about the. companies’
threat that Bill 31 will mean that
lower grades of ‘ore will be left in
the ground or discarded? As the
USWA demonstrates, “mine
managements always and con-
sistently high grade their
properties: If prices are low, they
Say low grade ore is uneconomic
and they leave it in the ground and
mine the higher grade ores ‘to keep

Operating.’ When prices are high

they generally mine higher grade
ores as fast as possible to make
more money faster... again

leaving lower grade ores in the
ground.”

Certainly the last concern in the
world that the companies have is
with the jobs of those presently
employed in the industry. A miner
is not likely to be a ‘vanishing
breed” when he produces upwards
of $25,000 per year for the mine
owners, the Steelworkers note.

PACIFIC TRIBUNE—FRIDAY, MAY 3

‘mineral production —

massive investment culm
greatly expanded products
All of which raises ai
issue: that the emp a)
provided and _ the Bor
“benefits to the people of wei
paltry, indeed, whet fils
against the fabulous PY? ait
the mining companies re@P
irreplaceable mineral a
that are being exploited: ine ™
With the exception of “ait
smelter operation, ince f
production in this provi.
out of the province for oo")
—‘and in the case °
comes back in finished 1%
Japan at seven times nd ott
the concentrates eee of
although copper acco! ale)
than "talf oes the total vw
$500 Ff
of $993 million — there is 00 |
smelter in this provinc® _ aj
The mining companie®, nal
them part of mullM i
conglomerates, hav@_ ind
interest in maintaMt
situation where B.C. tell
feed foreign, predomit pt
industry. It provides aU" obs of
but relatively few FY (0
relatively little bene’ i
economy. In contrast, dal
resources were process: iy 2
the benefit would mullPy gst

times. The noted mining ted ff
Charles Campbell, st if
years ago, in fact, that el
ore were smelted in B.¥ cot
of that resource to a sacl
would be multiplied bY r
ten. a
Small wonder, nee en
people of this proving q i
years voiced the dem weal!”
greater share of the auctiy
cruing to resource PF ours? i
the companies, of © over j
means socialism at pee
rediction possible jo |
fered to ennpons that ati ri
But the B.C. c
Labor, several labor coi
NDP government, the wor!
Party and now the Steé
have thrown it right

ot “3