Disabled workers

|
|
need opportunities |

by Wolfgang Zimmerman

|
|
i
|
|
|
|
|
|

VERY twelve seconds, during the average |
40 hour Canadian workweek, there is a dis-
)) abling accident at some jobsite in this

| country, amounting to 618,000 compens- |
“able lost-time accidents in 1988 with the
“cost of compensation, lost production and
other direct accident expenses estimated by Labor

Canada to be around $13.5 billion.

These figures do not begin to reflect the horren-
dous burden of pain and suffering, or the social,
psychological and economic trauma inflicted on |
the individual and their families. Most of us
experience the impact of a serious accident not by
association with some co-worker re-integrated
after a difficult injury (there are very few of them) |
but sadly enough on a very personal basis, either
ourselves or a close member or friend of the family. |

Canada as a nation entertains one of the weak- |
est, if not the poorest national policies with
regards to national health & safety as well as
rehabilitation.

Social stereotyping, perpetual barriers and |
severe legal impediments often provide insur- |
mountable barriers towards full re-integration of |
the injured into all aspects of our society.

In a national sense, up to now the labour
movement has not espoused the hotion of playing
a leadership role on a national, public and political
level which would illustrate its unequivocal desire

for full i i ‘tuniti on * a
a tnlVand tainemploymenvopporwuniviesowards | employment positions, a common thread is mani- |

disabled individuals.

No concrete steps have been taken to advance
the concept of quotas or mandatory affirmative

action for new hires or even structured arrange- |

ments to facilitate re-integration after a serious
industrial accident.

Equally important are the perceptions and
attitudes towards disabilities perpetuated by
many Canadian corporations whose hiring prac-
tices consider only the hiring of the physically

fittest, regardless of the position to be filled, and |

more importantly who
consider payment of
WCB premiums as their
final responsibility to-
wards employees with no
further obligation be-
yond this point.

In simple terms, cor-
porations often foresee
their payment of WC.B.
premiums as insurance
4 against re-hiring injured
workers with the con-
trite notion that their premiums provide financial
subsistence, with no regard, concern or awareness,
as to the disabled individual's trauma.

In my opinion by far the greatest impediment
towards successful re-integration of disabled citi-
zens in the workplace is the attitude of Govern-
ments, both in the Federal and Provincial arena.

As the Federal “Obstacles” Report in 1981
pointed out, many countries notably European,
Scandinavian , as well as Japan and the United
States have developed and implemented highly
successful systems to combat the unacceptable
high unemployment rate

pilot projects in at least 5 of the 10 provinces that
would involve two of the largest private sector
employers in developing innovative employment
equity programs. Each program would be a coop-
erative venture involving employer, employee
associations and all levels of government.

In this regard, both MacMillan Bloedel Ltd.,
one of Canada’s largest forest products companies
and IWA-CANADA, a national forest industry
union, in association with the Disabled Forestry
Workers Foundation and senior Secretary of State
representatives have agreed to convene a taskforce
in September of 1990 with the specific goal of
defining parameters, establishing mechanisms
and creating standards for the joint implementa-
tion of an employment re-integration program.

Building on this kind of initiative froma long-
range point of view, encompassing all union-
certifi ied operations, a legislative framework might
provide for a 5 year time frame during which
employment contracts could be voluntarily and
jointly improved to provide strategies for
re-integration of disabled workers into the
work-force.

_ The legislation must provide a transitional
time-frame coupled with financial incentives to
employers/unions and

of the disabled, yet Can-
ada fails to implement
even a basic, mandatory,
affirmative action
program.

While recognizing
that many social, eco-
nomic and structural
conditions are unique to

No concrete steps have been
taken to facilitate

worker re-integration after
serious industrial accidents

clearly enforce the laws
of where the voluntary
objectives after 5 years
are not achieved.
Unlike Australia’s
National Government,
which several years ago
instituted a national
health and safety com-

Canada, we must be suf-
ficiently pragmatic to accept that differences are
not pronounced to the point where selected foreign
models, falling within the parameters of the west-
ern industrialized nations, are not applicable to
us.

Whether it is West Germany with its enforced
Quota system, Australia and its recently enacted
Comceare legislation or our neighbors to the South
with whom we signed a recent free trade agree-
ment and whose President has shown his commit-

| ment and compassion by enacting the Americans

| with Disabilities Act, extending mandatory affir-
mative action to an estimated 95% of American

| festly displayed in all of those initiatives.
At their core is government leadership, commit-
| ment and a collective determination for creation of

| equitable opportunities for its citizens unfortu-
| nate to become disabled. Recommendations to the
| government of Canada from a conference on
| injured workers held in Ottawa this past June call
| upon the responsible ministers and their provin-
| cial counterparts in order to establish a national
| goal for the re-integration of disabled individuals.
| The conference recommended more specifically

é mission with a very spe-
fic mandate to create conditions leading to a re-
duction in accidents, Canada’s national govern-
ment seems oblivious to the horrendous burden of
pain, suffering and loss impositioned by ever
increasing industrial injuries.

We would challenge this committee to ensure
that respective federal ministers in collaboration
with their provincial counterparts and in associa-
tion with industry, unions and injured workers
launch a comprehensive taskforce with the stated
goal of ascertaining approaches resulting in a
measurable reduction in the number of industrial
accidents.

Wolfgang Zimmerman is an injured forest
worker and ex-member of Port Alberni Local 1-85.
He is also an Executive Director of the Disabled
Forestry Workers of B.C. In June Mr. Zimmerman
attended the first national injured workers confer-
ence in Ottawa.

Health protection and workplace monitoring
agreement set for anti-sapstain chemicals

by Verna Ledger
Health and Safety Director,
IWA-CANADA

A major step towards the safer use
of sapstain control chemicals in Brit-
ish Columbia was established by an
agreement reached with forest indus-
try companies represented by Council
of Forest Industries on May 4, 1990.

IWA-CANADA has long fought to
have anti-stain chemicals removed
from forest industry workplaces. In
particular the fight to have chlorophe-
nols banned in Canada has been going
on for at least ten years.

Success has been slow in coming,
but finally it appears chlorophenols
are on their way out. Most B.C. saw-
mills have discontinued use of this
highly toxic chemical due mainly to
pressure from overseas markets. How-
ever our ultimate goal of removing
anti-stain chemicals entirely from the
workplace has not yet been achieved.

Although industry has signed an
agreement which states “All uses of

toxic sapstain control products in
British Columbia are to be discon-
tinued as soon as it is practicable,”
taking into account four objectives —

© environmental protection

e health protection, especially of
workers

° efficacy and

© “economic feasibility”.

It will be some time before newer
technologies or methods are devel-
oped which will entirely replace anti-
stain chemicals.

So in the interim we have attempted
to reach agreement on safer alterna-
tives as well as safer methods of pro-
tection for workers. A Multi-Stake-
holder Committee composed of mem-
bers representing IWA-CANADA,
Council of Forest Industries, Envi-
ronment Canada, C.P.U., P.P.W..,
I.L.W.U,, Wharf Operators Associa-
tion and two environmental groups
(West Coast Environmental Law and
Earth Care) have continued to meet
over the last 6 months to try and
reach consensus on the issues of anti-
stain chemicals and alternatives.

© Most anti-sapstains are applied within
high pressure spray boxes.

We have been caught in a serious
dilemma of whether or not we would
agree to the “conditional” registra-
tion of a small group of chemicals
containing the active ingredients
D.D.AC. and I.P.BC. (This group of

chemicals under the brand name N.P.1

is currently used by IWA members in
the U.S. with no apparent health
effects) or to condemn our members
to at least two more years of working
with T.C.M.T.B., a chemical we know is
causing serious acute effects to some
of our members.

The industry is also in a bind since
they may not be able to meet the new
Waste Management storm water
leachate regulations (expected by
September) for T.C.M.T.B., so they are
extremely anxious to attempt to reach
consensus on safer alternatives. Agri-
culture Canada has refused to con-
sider conditional registration of this
group of active ingredients without a
consensus agreement.

The IWA’s position as well as the
other unions and environmentalists is
that the industry must move entirely
away from the use of anti-stain chemi-
cals and pursue other technologies
such as kiln drying. However in the
meantime, it was necessary to attempt
to reach consensus on safer alterna-
tives.

Continued on page 11

10/LUMBERWORKER/JULY, 1990