ee a eae ee ee

eR)

_ Major deficiencies included repair of one

Editor’s Note:
The following is taken from the Build-
ing Trades Bulletin of the same title.
It is published here to give IWA mem-
bers an idea of the kind of people the
Labour Movement has to deal with.

An Unfair Employer
The Kerkhoff Group of companies, oper-
ated by J. C. Kerkhoff and five relatives, has
established a notable record as an unfair
employer, operating contrary to the spirit of
the B.C. Labour Code. 3
Kerkhoff’s own brochure spells it out:
“Why is Kerkhoff non-union? Quite
simply, it allows us much greater
flexibility in terms of the calibre of
people we hire, how much we pay them
as well as when and where they work

In other words, in spite of guarantees by
the Labour code that any group of workers
should have the right to union representa-
tion, Kerkhoff proudly proclaims its anti-
union stance and its intention to avoid
dealing with employees who might want to
exercise the right to union representation
provided by the Labour Code.

And they have lived up to it. In 1979 a
Provincial Industrial Relations Officer
advised the Carpenters’ Union that the com-
pany had been ordered to back-pay employ-
ees for overtime for a six-month period.

The resolve to operate non-union has
included tactics such as bringing non-union
workers in from other parts of the province
to avoid the possibility that locally-hired
workers would be unionized; as well as the
use of subsidiary companies to avoid
unionization.

Of course, this performance as an unfair
employer is made possible by record high
unemployment which makes desperate
workers vulnerable to exploitation in many
ways.

Freeloading on the Public and
on Legitimate Employers

One of the reasons Kerkhoff has an
advantage bidding on contracts is their
position as freeloaders. One of the signifi-
cant costs for legitimate employers is that of
apprenticeship and training. This provides
necessary skilled workers who would other-
wise have to be trained in publicly-funded
vocational institutes. Kerkhoff, and other
contractors of his ilk, contribute nothing to
this apprenticeship and training system,
content to freeload on the public and respon-
sible contractors.

Sub-standard Work

Perhaps the biggest reason for rejecting
Kerkhoff, particularly when taxpayers’
money is involved, is to consider examples
of sub-standard work in which the company
has been involved. These projects have
generated the following complaints:

e Salish Place Library, Chilliwack: “Com-
plaints about... leaks in the roof, damage to
the rear doors, and the power-operated doors
at the front entrance.”

¢ Hatzic Elementary School additions:

entire floor and part of another, refurbish-
ing the exterior coating of ceiling beams,
replacement of a door and all chalkboards.

© Lansdowne Grove, Richmond: Siding
had to be completely redone, due to water
leaking into the building walls.

Chilliwack Health Unit (the worst yet):
ns were set off-centre and had to be
‘k-hammered out and moved. Steel studs
ere wrongly placed; a retaining wall had to
¥e moved. Only time will tell the effects of
eakened floors and walls.

ble Bidding Practices
hoff has run afoul of the rules for the
gamated Construction Association
itory”, the accepted mechanism
ing construction bids. In June,
choff was suspended from the Bid

y for 30 days for violating the

THE REAL KERKOFF STORY

In addition, Kerkhoff faces lawsuits in
Kamloops for sub-contracting to companies
who hadn’t even bid, at the expense of
sub-contractors who had submitted bids
and been accepted.

B.C. Supreme Court, Vancouver Registry,
in 1982-83 listed Kerkhoff as a defendant in
9 cases alleging breach of contract.

Kerkhoff is under attack for listing a
dummy company as a sub-contractor when
work was being carried out by another
company.

The operation of this company (or group
of companies) has resulted in other legal
problems arising from their practices and
any taxpayers representative should care-
fully and fully investigate and consider
their record of performance.

Huge Profits at the expense of
Employees and Taxpayers?

On many of the projects where Kerkhoff
has been the successful bidder at the
expense of established, experienced union
contractors, Kerkhoff’s bids have been only
slightly lower. Consider these examples:

On the nearly 13 million dollar Kam-
loops courthouse project Kerkhoff’s bid
was only 1.8% lower than the next, a
union contractor.

On the Chilliwack Health Unit,
Kerkhoff’s bid was only 1.7% lower
than the next bid, a union contractor.
On many others, Kerkhoff was the suc-

cessful bidder with bids under 5% lower than
the next bidder, often a union contretor.

Yet Kerkhoff is paying wages which
range up to 45% lower, is not paying the
costs of apprenticeship and training, is not
paying many other employee benefits paid
by union contractors. At the same time,
Kerkhoff, as the examples cited show, is not
producing any better quality work or
product.

Where is all the money going? Unless the
company is incredibly inefficient, we can
only assume that the answer must be that
they are enjoying huge profits. In the cases
of publicly-funded construction, that means
these profits are not being passed on to
taxpayers. In every case, it would mean
these profits are at the expense of workers
made desperate by unemployment.

It’s time to reject Kerkhoff and demand
that our tax dollars only go to companies
with a record of responsibility, and fair
dealing with construction workers in B.C.

PENSION
REFORM

By JOAN DE ’ATH

Over the last ten years a major debate on
pension reform has taken place in Canada.

Thee- is no longer any disagreement
between labour, Federal and Provincial
Governments and business groups that
Canadians need more income in retirement.
The dispute ensues over whether or not the
public plans (Old Age Security and Canada
Pension Plan) or private pension arrange-
ments should be expanded to provide
greater retirement income and protection
for dependent spouses, part-time employees,
etc.

Labour supports increased benefits under .
the Canada Pension Plan and Old Age
Security Program. These are the only plans
that cover all working Canadians. If the
pension reform process allows increased
pension protection through private pension
arrangements, only 50% of the working
population will be affected.

The Federal Government does not believe
that workers in this country support
labour’s stand on doubling the pénsions
under the Canada Pension Plan. The gov-
ernment does not view an increase in
Canada Pension benefits as an immediate
priority.

An astonishing number of this country’s
aged are poor. One elderly Canadian in four
lvies on an income that falls below the
poverty line.

We have to change the government’s atti-
tude.

If we do not draw attention to the impor-
tance of pension reform to both the Federal
and Provincial Governments before the
next Federal election the issue will likely be
dropped and it will take many years tomove
pension reform back onto the agenda as a
high profile issue once again.

Increased benefits under the Canada
Pension Plan should be a key issue in the
next general election. ~

MPs and electoral candidates should
be contacted so that your views are
known.

If you wish to receive a brief summary of
the issues involved in the debate on’
pensions and labour’s proposed resolutions
contact the local. You may also want to read
the IWA’s report presented to the Federal
Government's Task Force on Pension
Reform last fall.

E
A
| LISTON A PIECE
1 OEPAPER THE
is Wy WE USE
1
|
i
|
|
|
1
1
1
|
!
1
'

A
OUR ain My

YOU WONT WIN A PRIZE
BUT YOU WILL REMEMBER |
TOMORROW'S FORESTS |
++. TODAY'S CHALLENGE

1
ee a

WORKERS LIKE UNIONS

By a whopping margin, union members
who participated in an independent
national survey said they would vote for
their unions again ina certification election.

The study, done by researcher Stephen M.
Hills under the auspices of Ohio State Uni-
versity, asked more than 1,000 male union
members aged 28-38 how they would vote in
a certification election in their workplaces.
The survey was designed to measure how
satisfied workers invarious industries are
with their unions.

Overall, 85% of those surveyed said they
would vote “yes” for a union again. Pro-
union response ranged from a high of 92
percent among public employees to 80 per-
cent among workers in the mining indus-
try.

From: “The Dispatcher”, June/84

by Nicole Hollander
HUDDLE EAS} AND WEATHER,

a.

Lumber Worker/Summer, 1984/7