APPRENTICESHIP
FORUM

Canada’s critical shortage of skilled
tradesmen could cripple the country’s indus-
trial expansion in the years ahead unless
remedial action is taken at once.

This message came through loud and
clear at the Apprenticeship Forum spon-
sored by the Provincial Apprenticeship
Board January 21, at the Delta River Inn,
and attended by leaders of industry, unions
and government.

The keynote speaker was Jack Heinrich,
B.C. Minister of Labour, who in a hard
hitting address stated one solution to the
problem was for the employers to do more
training of apprentices.

He added that there must be less reliance
on poaching, pirating, stealing and the old
standby, immigration.

He argued that a system must be devised
to ensure that all industries in B.C. share
equally in the responsibility for training the
required skilled workforce.

Two proposals he put forth in question
form were:

1. Should government develop some form
of financial equalization so that those
employers who do not train will be required
to help pay the costs of training?

2. Should consideration be given to cost
equalization schemes in which employers
have the choice of spending a percentage of
payroll on training and development or
paying an equal amount to government ina
form of a training levy?

The IWA has argued for years that some
form of assessment should be levied against
those employers who refuse to train their
employees preferring to get them elsewhere
by hook or by crook.

Regional first vice-president Bob Blan-
chard one of the featured speakers at the
Forum stated at the opening of his remarks,
“The truth is that the forest industry history
as it pertains to co-operation in training
skilled workers has been, until recently,
fifty-one cards short of a full deck.”

While scoring the Coastal forest compan-
ies for their lack of action, Blanchard did
pay credit to the Interior companies for
working with the IWA in devising a training

> |

Regional First Vice-President Bob Blanchard addressing the Apprenticeship Forum sponsored by the Provincial

Southern Interior Forest Labour Relations Association.

Apprenticeship Department January 21, at the River Inn, Richmond. On the far left is John Todman, President of the

programme which will ensure the proper
ratio of apprentices to journeymen.

He also mentioned that the forest compan-
ies in Alberta are working with the Union on
similar training programmes.

He warned his listeners that while the
IWA was interested in cooperating, as an
industrial union it would insist that senior
people have the first opportunity at apprent-
iceship postings.

He also warned that the Union would

fight any employer in the forest industry
who attempted to use apprentices as a
source of cheap labour.

He concluded by stating that in his
opinion the present situation was not irrep-
arable provided that the interested parties
gave their genuine cooperation.

While no concrete proposals came out of
the Forum it was generally regarded as a
good meeting and should help in deciding
what course of action should be taken.

SIGNIFICANT
VICTORY

The members of the Amalgamated Clo-
thing and Textile Workers’ Union
(ACTWU) have won a significant victory by
winning their first collective agreement
with the violent anti-union J. P. Stevens
Company.

The agreement, ratified by ACTWU mem-
bers at Stevens’ plants in North and South
Carolina and in Alabama, puts an end to
the most protracted labour-management
dispute in American history, and to the
boycott of Stevens’ products.

As part of the contract settlements, some
8,500 workers at Stevens’ plants in severl
Southern U.S. States will receive a retroac-
tive wage settlement of 19.3 per cent,
representing more than three million dol-
lars.

The company has also agreed to make up
back payments due to union pension funds.
And it agreed to offer the same economic
package to workers at any of its 70 other

plants who in the next 18 months organizea
union certified by the National Labour
Relations Board.

“WALKING
WOUNDED”

THE EDITOR:

I read in your August 1980 issue Volume
XLVIII No. 7 on the back page the following
under “Remember” and I quote “itis a viola-
tion of union policy to allow or encourage
injured workers to perform duties in the role
of walking wounded.”

I would appreciate a more detailed expla-
naction of this union policy.

W. L. Polman, MD

Dear Dr. Polman:

I have been requested by the editor of the
1.W.A. Western Canadian ‘Lumber Worker’
to respond to your letter of enquiry dated
December 19, 1980.

I am enclosing for your information a
copy of the I.W.A. Safety Policy and Com-
mittee Members Guide Book, which con-
tains on page 10, the policy on walking
wounded that you mentioned in your letter.
It also contains an “explanation” of walk-
ing woulded at the bottom of that page.

I will attempt, however, to explain in a
little more detail, what itis the union objects
to with so-called “light duty” otherwise
known as “walking wounded”. Unfortu-
nately we have experienced over and over
again situations where a worker is injured
at work and the employer will phone the
individual and suggest there is a “light
duty” job he or she could do rather than
staying home on compensation. On the
surface there would not appear to be a
problem with this, but on closer examina-
tion we usually find the worker will be given
a make-up job (e.g. counting bolts and nuts
in the storeroom or even just sitting in the
first aid room) for a few days and then will
be required to return to his or her job. If the
injured worker cannot perform the job, he or
she may be sent home. The problem occurs
when the worker then attempts to collect
compensation. Usually the claim is pro-
tested, by the company or the W.C.B. and
there are long delays while the claim is

being appealed, before the worker receives
money, if ever.

The I.W.A. has also had reports from
injured members who have been harassed
by the company personnel who may phone
continually or even visit the worker’s house
in an attempt to have the worker return
early to work. Also, in many cases, Dr.
Polman, the worker’s physician is phoned
by the company who claims to have a “light
duty” job for the worker. The doctor some-
times agrees believing the work wll not
harm his patient. However the fact of the
matter is thatin the forest industry there are
practically no “light duty” jobs. Most
categories of work require a worker to stand
for long periods, lift, pull and push consid-
erable weights, drive mobile equipment
which is noisy, dirty and vibrates exten-
sively. In the logging industry there are
even less possibilities for light work. I could
go on and list the various types of work in
the woodworking industry, but perhaps you
are personally familiar with them. How-
ever, unfortunately most doctors are not,
and that is part of the problem.

Please don’t misunderstand our position,

Dr. Polman, we are not opposed to workers

returning to some form of productive work

when it is for rehabilitative purposes and in
fact we have often worked with the medical
profession and the W.C.B. in attempting to
return a seriously injured worker to some
kind of productive employment, and we will
continue to do so. The objections we have are
to the cases where an employer will attempt
to coerce an employee to return to work or to
stay at work rather than going on compen-
sation simply to maintain an “accident-free
record”.

Hopefully I have explained the I.W.A.’s
position on “walking wounded” to your
satisfaction, Dr. Polman. However if you
have any further questions or comments, we
would be pleased to hear from you. We
sincerely thank you for your interest.

Verna Ledger, Director
Safety and Health

2/Lumber Worker/January, 1981