Labour Free trade foes want |; | proposals for action The anti-free trade forces must set their own alternate economic agenda for Canada and go on the offensive in attacking the Tory’s sellout of the country, delegates to a Saturday conference on the Free Trade Agreement declared. Representatives of trade unions, envir- onmental, church and cultural groups worked on recom- mendations for con- tinuing the fight in B.C. and the rest of Canada at the Feb. 25 conference, org- anized by the B.C. Coalition Against “Free” Trade. They did not pass any resolutions. And while prais- ing the intent of documents such as the Canadian La- bour Congress’ A Working Future: Canada’s Challenge, some delegates de- manded that more teeth — such as plans for civil dis- obedience — be put into the fight against what most recognized as the “neo-conservative agenda.” Delegates were critical of the report, which had already come under fire in a CLC ranking officers meeting last month, for its passive and defensive tone in seeking to mitigate the effects of plant closures, mergers and layoffs in the wake of the free trade deal. It was given in person by con- gress executive vice-president Nancy Riche, an outspoken opponent of the free trade pact during the election months last fall. The conference accepted, without debate, a workshop recommendation to create “an alternative economic agenda” utilizing the principles contained in the Working Future report and the Social Solidarity statement, to be taken to the conference of the Pro- Canada Network on March 11. (The statement, A Time to Stand Together, A Time of Social Solidarity was launched by a coalition of trade unionists, church, anti-poverty and Native groups in December, 1987. It demanded a full employment strategy, strengthened social- services and greater Canadian self-suff- iciency.) The recommendation — it was not adopted by resolution — called for recog- nition of picket lines, plant occupations, and “other peaceful forms of civil disobe- Coalition chairperson Jean Swanson said delegates recognized “a real urgency that unless we do something, we'll lose our cul- ture, our country and our lifestyle to the corporate agenda.” We have to go on the offensive,” she said, citing the necessity to create information and organizational networks, educate the SINCLAIR public, and engage in ‘acts of civil disobe- dience where necessary. The lack of hard action plans led dele- gates to criticize A Working Future which Riche, who attended the morning session, laid out for conference. | The six-point program stresses the need to demand the government mitigate workers’ losses under free trade. It calls for meetings with governments and employers and striking a national committee compris- ing equal representation from workers, bus- iness and government. The action program, to be voted onat the May CLC convention, recommends moni- toring the effects of free trade, utilizing legis- lation such as the Freedom of Information Act. Campbell River delegate Cathy Shaw, complaining that the program had no sug- gestion of job action, said: ““These programs are very good, but they’ve got no guts.” Hospital Employees Union representa- tive Carmela Allevato said the program lacked suggestions on how to counter government attempts to privatize public services and contract out jobs. “I must say I’m disappointed in the tenor of the report,” she said. The HEU has called on the congress to initiate an action program in line with that of the B.C. Federation of Labour. The reso- lution, adopted by the Vancouver and Dis- trict Labour Council, urges the CLC to “mount a program that involves rank and file action up to and including job action in opposition to the effects of free trade.” The CLC document contains no mention of job action. Riche, in response to a dele- gate’s suggestion that it do so, responded that, “‘we’re not talking general strike yet,” although that was not to say that at some point the congress might not consider such action. But no delegate promoting job action had called for such a large-scale undertaking as a general strike. The CLC executive member used the same line of reasoning regarding other forms of protest. “The Tories would love us to spend all our time protesting a plant closure” while it sneaked such programs as U.S.-inspired employee drug-use testing through the back door, Riche said — as if actions on both fronts were mutually exclu- sive. Jim Sinclair of the United Fishermen and Allied Workers Union praised aspects of the CLC report, but said: “There are a lot of people across the country being laid off due to the corporate agenda. What are we say- ing to them?” Several workshop reports stressed the need to build grassroots coalitions and obtain the broadest possible unity among anti-free forces. Delegates said the anti-free fight must take the offensive and promote an alterna- tive economic strategy that includes improved rather than reduced social servi- ces, a program to protect the environment and culture, and nationalization of some key resources. a ee ee ee oe > ene eS eee =. oa Ckns < eS Cs Postal Cod6 =... 3.5... ss lamenclosing 1yr.$200 2yrs. $350) 3yrs. $500 Foreigniyr. $320 | Bill me later ~Donation$........ : READ THE PAPER THAT FIGHTS FOR LABOUR 1 12 e Pacific Tribune, March 6, 1989 ‘Corporate agenda’ overtaking CLC plan The quickening pace with which com- pany boardrooms have been moving down the corporate agenda in the last couple of weeks should be raising some alarm bells in union halls, particularly in the Canadian Labour Congress head- quarters. The CLC officers are continuing to press for more adjustment programs for workers and participation in govern- ment commissions as the way to go in opposing free trade and corporate re- structuring. But what is becoming apparent is that the economy is very quickly being “‘adjusted” out from under workers’ feet. Last week, the multinational giant Dominion Textile announced it would be laying off some 425 workers in Quebec as part of a re-Structuring plan that will eventually see more people cut from the payroll in the months to come. The company made it clear that the plan was specifically intended to “position” Domtex to take advantage of free trade, although that advantage obviously isn’t going to be shared by the laid-off workers. ‘Donald MacDonald, whose royal commission report opened the free trade Griffin NEWS ANALYSIS debate, followed the Domtex cutbacks with a speech in Toronto Feb. 28 in which he warned that there would be several more years of layoffs and corpo- rate takeovers before any benefits might come from free trade. “There will be some jobs lost,” he said. “But that, of course, was always con- templated.” For Wardair employees, the announce- ments about corporate takeover and layoffs came in tandem as the airline company last week announced cuts of 535 workers immediately, to be followed by another 500 over the course of the summer. The cuts will result in unem- ployment for more than 20 per cent of Wardair’s work force. And then on Feb. 28 came the announcement of the letter from Lau- rence Thibault, president of the Cana- dian Manufacturers Association, launch- ing a renewed attack on Canada’s social programs. In a letter and accompanying brief to Finance Minister Michael Wilson, Thi- bault stated: “Because 60 per cent of program spending is tied up in statutory programs, with most of this on social programs, this is the spending area that must be reduced,” he stated. “We’re wasting a lot of that money on people who don’t need it,” he said. - Just a week earlier, the president of the Canadian Federation of Independent Business had called on Wilson to cut spending by ending universality of social programs. The evidence is certainly there that the tempo of re-structuring is picking up. And the corporate sector is putting the pressure on the Tories to move things along still faster by making changes to social programs, including medicare and unemployment insurance. Unionists from across the country at the ranking officers meeting of the CLC Feb. | told congress leaders that a pro- gram that focussed on. monitoring the effects of the trade deal and taking part in government “adjustment” programs just wasn’t enough. They said that the trade union movement needed an action plan to respond to plant closures and layoffs and that the CLC should only participate in adjustment programs to put forward labour’s own program. That message needs to be driven home again. ae Significantly, the union whose mem- bers will be affected in the Domtex layoffs, the Centrale de syndicates demo- cratiques in Quebec, broke ranks with the rest of the labour movement over the trade deal. It supported free trade with the assurance that adjustment programs would be provided to offset the disloca- tion. of workers. But far from providing any adjust- ment, Finance Minister Michael Wilson took a step towards further layoffs in the textile industry by asking the Canadian International Trade Tribunal to find ways to cut import tariffs on textiles to bring them into line with Europe and the U.S. The playing field is being levelled — and workers are being levelled with it. In addition, it is apparent that the cor- porate sector is already calling the shots with government as to how any adjust- ment programs that are provided should work and who should be covered. It’s also clear that business wants those pro- grams tied to changes to the unemploy- ment insurance program, to “remove disincentives”’ — a point that was made by three writers from the corporate think-tank, the C.D. Howe Institute, ina commentary in the Financial Post Mar. 1. Events are rapidly overtaking the proposals put forward by the Congress leadership at the Feb. | meeting. More than that, there’s a growing uneasiness among unionists that taking part in government programs will make the labour movement part of an agenda that has been pre-set by business — and could co-opt unionists into the process of re-shaping unemployment insurance and other programs as part of “becoming competitive.” ; The mounting layoffs also make it all urgent that the trade union movement begin laying out an action plan — such as those adopted by the B.C. and Onta- rio federations of labour. As the Feb. 1 meeting demonstrated, workers are angry and they are prepared to act — but that mood could soon dissi- pate if the labour movement doesn’t demonstrate that it has an alternative to more re-structuring and more layoffs. At the same time, the corporate attack on social programs provides some new opportunities for social solidarity on a country-wide scale. With some quick initiative, the labour movement, together with community, anti-poverty, church and women’s groups, could re-take the political agenda in this country and mount a huge campaign, not only to defend the Canadian traditions of our social programs, but also to challenge the corporate agenda. | ‘ ie a igs Mee)