Mass firings ___ By FRED WILSON It 1S difficult to pinpoint exactly how far K into history the anti-labor legislation brought down by the provincial government with the budget has put trade union rights in Province. f The weight of the legislation for now af- ts only the 243,580 workers in the public Sector under provincial jurisdiction, Ough these workers constitute 19 percent Of the provincial labor force. But after assessing the sweeping provi- Slons of the three main bills that apply to lic sector workers in B.C., the in- *scapable conclusion is that this legislation Présages similar legislation aimed at the Private sector. When basic trade union ‘ghts, including the most elementary forms °F union security and seniority, are wiped Out, when the right of a tenant to live in a Ome without being evicted at the whim of © landlord is wiped out, when every latutory right won against the freedom of “pital to impose its power are under attack, . €te can’t be any doubt that union security ae Private sector will soon face a modified “sion of right-to-work legislation. ql € reasoning behind these conclusions Ows from the scope of Bill 2, Bill 3 and Bill » Which emasculate public sector collective againing rights in B.C. It wasn’t by acci- “nt that Bill 2 and Bill 3 were in fact the first pieces of legislation presented to the ewlature in the session following the fading of the budget. ‘ne budget and the whole economic licy of the government rests on its attack against the statutory rights of the public sec- OF unions, b © government’s economic strategy is peed on the so-called neo-conservative no- On that if the size of the public sector is uuced, it will create a more favorable situa- On for the private sector to lead an nomic recovery. The government faces a th of problems implementing that Sane however, not least justifying social Tvice cutbacks. But the main obstacle is the €r of million public sector workers that Bae linked their livelihoods to the delivery Public services and who have fought to “tablish rights. ‘he budget set out the government’s ob- é ve to reduce employment in the direct el service by 25 percent over two 43 46 In 1983-84 it intends to reduce the 458 government employees by 14.6 per- jobs S would work out to a reduction in 63 Of over 10,000 in two years, and of ie In the current fiscal year. In 1983-84 : 80vernment estimates that six percent of req ork force will be lost through attrition, ys another 3,737 firings. BEe Drovia ding in the way of that objective is a Tent on in the BCGEU collective agree- Years at no employee with two or more ey. can be laid off, and normal €partmental seniority provisions. ea simple answer of the Bennett govern- 3th Was to wipe out these union rights. Bill ©Public Sector Restraint Act, eliminates TEACHERS (top), B.C. GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES UNION MEMBERS . . . strip- ped of tenure or job security rights, facing layoffs and | rollbacks of negotiated salary levels, under sweeping new restrictive legislation. all job security and seniority rights for public sector workers under provincial jurisdiction. Although the stated intention of the govern- ment is to reduce only its own direct work - force, the provisions of Bill 3 apply as well to employees. of. crown corporations, municipalities, school boards, universities and colleges, hospitals or publicly funded health care facilities, and libraries. The legislation states that ‘‘notwithstan- ding the Labor Code or the Public Service Labor Relations Act, a public sector employer may terminate the employment of an employee without cause.’’ Those with collective agreements in force the day the legislation was introduced are sheltered only until the expiry of their agreement. After that, they can be fired without cause. The legislation then makes it clear that if the right of an employer to terminate without cause is in conflict with a collective agreement, the right to fire without cause prevails. : If no provision of a collective agreement can protect a worker from dismissal, not- withstanding the Labor Code, union activity itself could be cause for dismissal. Of course it would never be stated that way; the dismissal would be ‘‘without cause.” Bill 3 proceeds to suggest — it is carefully worded so as not to require this — that BUPGET hang over pub regulations may be put in place to effect mass firings. The regulations would be developed by the cabinet and applied by public sector employers at their discretion. Public sector employers would be authoriz- ed to_re-classify employees.into. groups for determining who would be fired. The criteria for use in this re-classification ‘“‘may’’ in- clude, ‘‘the skills, abilities and qualifications of employees; operational requirements and efficiency; the seniority of employees; the seniority provisions of a collective agree- ment.”’ In other words, seniority is only one criteria which may be used in determining who would be fired. This effectively strikes down seniority provisions for 243,448 workers. Having eliminated job security and seniority, the Socreds then moved to make these measures permanent and more far reaching for its direct work force. Bill 2 amends the Public Service Labor Relations Act and it prohibits any future collective agreement from having provisions concern- ing the establishment. and elimination of positions, duties to be performed, work scheduling, method of delivery of services, job evaluation or classifications. With this amendment provincial govern- ment employees have lost the right to negotiate any form of working conditions. lic sector The union can not bargain where, when or what work will be performed, or under what conditions. For workers who remain in the public sec- tor after the firings, the government has also introduced legislation to extend wage con- trols indefinitely and for the first time to pro- vide for wage rollbacks under the system. Bill 11 amends the Compensation Stabiliza- tion Act and covers the entire provincial public sector. The old act stated its purpose to “stabilize”? public sector wages. The new draft states its purpose as ‘‘being to ‘‘restrain and stabilize’’ public sector wages. This additional measure of restraint is to be effected by an amendment to Section 12.1 of the Act which states that ‘‘the plan shall” give paramount consideration to the ability of the public sector employer to pay that compensation.”’ In response to arbitration awards that ex- ceeded the previous guidelines, the new wage control laws also make the ability to pay principle the obligatory paramount con- sideration of arbitration awards. How to define a public sector’s employer’s ability to pay has been a troublesome question even for the govern- ment’s CSP staff. In material they released with the budget they stated that the CSP commissioner Ed Peck won’t even attempt to consider what the employer can pay, and will Only rule on instances when the employer has an ‘“‘inability to pay’’. This kind of inability to pay is of course determin- ed by the particular budget of the public sec- tor employer, in most cases controlled directly by the provincial cabinet. In fact the government is determined that there will be no wage increases in 1983-84 for public sector workers. Finance minister Hugh Curtis announced in the budget that the government has budgeted for a zero wage increase this year, and for the whole public sector the 1983-84 guidelines will be ~ from minus five percent to plus five percent. Wage increases will be largely limited to so- called ‘‘productivity increases’. That in- volves the almost impossible task of demonstrating increased productivity at a reduced cost. On the other hand, declining productivity, for example in reduced hours _ of work, or a ‘“‘inability to pay’? by an employer, could result in a wage roll back ordered by Peck of up to five percent. Sec- tion 17 of the Compensation Stabilization, Act has been amended to give Peck clear, authority to roll back wages. Public sector unions have not been abolished in B.C. But their ability to negotiate security, seniority, working condi- tions or wages has been put in question. It is clear from this legislation that the labor movement has been challenged to use its power to defend the basic principles of trade unionism, or risk regressing over 100 years into the dark ages of labor history. Anger rises over Socred attacks on education of overall reduction in education funding tin opercent by 1986, the virtual emascula- and th control over education priorities Donte, layoff of thousands of teaching and ae staff will be the results of the Thap<