RESIDENT'S MESSAGE

New employer tactics need
to be examined by union

by Gerry Stoney

hange in the workplace has always

been unavoidable. The products we

manufacture, the technology we use,

and the skills we need are continually

evolving. So too are the relations
between employers and employees.

In recent years we have witnessed more
ideas for change in the workplace as employ-
ers are using new employment techniques to
boost their profits. The employees are chang-
ing their tactics and are looking at ways of
involving their employees in that change.

There are both good and bad effects of
their approaches. Employers are appearing, at
least on the surface, to be less confrontational
when they ask us for cooperation. They are
more willing to share important information
about their lumber markets, profit and loss,
and production figures.

On the other hand some workers are being
overwhelmed by information which they can-
not digest and can be blamed for bad deci-
sions which affect production. Employees
are, in many instances, snowballed into
accepting change without knowing what they
are getting into.

Anyway you cut it, change is something
that is guaranteed - just like death and taxes.
So we in the IWA, rather than react to change,
need to play a leading role in changing the
work place.

That means something for something. We
work with industry for better production, bet-

ter pay, a safer place
to work in, and
increased job securi-

In all areas of the
workplace we need
to put our agenda for-
ward as the employ-
ers seek change to
fulfil their agendas.

The IWA and other
trade unions only
need to look at our
history to be proud of
the change we have
brought. Labour
unions have played a
leading role in bring-
ing the minimum
wage, health and

work place. Impro-
share, Gainshare,
Profit Share, what-
ever-the-share, all of
them use the pros-
pect of more money
as a teaser, a legit-
imizer for whatever
change they hope will
take root in the oper-
ation.

To be completely
fair about it, there are
not a lot of people,
especially in hard
times, who are going
to turn down the pos-
sibility of more pay.

If all of these new
systems that MacBlo

safety regulations,
pensions, and the 40 hour work week.

So when it comes to change in the work
place, we have a pretty good record. Certainly
without our involvement those changes men-
tioned above would have never taken place.

Today when we look at what are examples
of effective change in the work place we need
to look no further than B.C.’s largest forest
company - MacMillan Bloedel.

MacBlo has been “experimenting” with new
employment systems in a number of opera-
tions both in B.C. and outside the province.
The new systems typically involve alternate
compensation systems that try to link work
performance with pay.

These systems are called “Improshare,
Gainsharing, Profit Sharing” or a variety of
other titles.

Like every other major forest company
MacBlo has a fairly powerful tool to promote
its view of how change will take place in the

is toying with were
taking place in an industry where collective
agreements were negotiated on a plant-by-
plant basis then, we as a union would simply
have to try to negotiate our way through all of
this.

But that isn’t the case in B.C. where we
negotiate a master agreement which applies
equally in all operations that are covered by
the agreement.

When MacBlo or any other company which
is part of master agreement bargaining, starts
to experiment with new systems, they are
really experimenting with the master agree-
ment structure. It is the same thing as a com-
pany going into an operation and putting
together an employee committee that deals
with many of the same issues as the estab-
lished plant committee.

We don’t object to dialogue but we do say
that they should talk to the union first and set
up a formal structure for any such talks.

GUEST COLUMN

It’s time to examine new
options for forest tenure

by Sy Pederson

nan article that appeared in the Lumberwork-
er over three years ago the then NDP Forestry
Critic Dan Miller wrote that B.C. forest
“tenure system . . . must be reviewed to see if
we are getting the maximum obtainable in
investment and job creation.”

That was true then and it’s even more important
now. Dan Miller is now the province’s Minister of
Forests and should remember what he said in 1990
when unemployment was beginning to skyrocket
and thousands of workers faced unemployment
and welfare.

Today corporate managers and politicians are
calling the economic rebound in the forest indus-
try a “jobless recovery” when they describe the
phenomena that drove the price of lumber to
record highs earlier this year.

That’s good for corporate bottom line but we
have yet to see an increase in employment for our
members. Many of those who lost their jobs in the
“made in Canada” recession are still out of the for-
est industry for good.

The fact remains that we are down in our mem-
bership in the forest industry and, under the pre-
sent system of tenure in the province, jobs are not
being created like they should be.

In 1990 Dan Miller told IWA members that “the
(Socred) provincial government has stood by
while thousands of jobs have been lost. They have
accepted the corporations’ explanation that it was
all in the name of good business practices.”

Now with the New Democrats in power, our
annual allowable cuts are coming down drastically
and the question arises, will the government of the
day do anything substantive to counteract the job
losses that will hit our members?

Certainly the forest sector advisory group,
announced in January by the Forests Minister is a
step in the right direction. Our union will work
with the forest ministry and others to secure jobs
and to search for opportunities for new jobs.

But the greater question arises, can we make the
changes that are necessary under the present

tenure system? In my opinion this is a very funda-

jy mental question that
must be addressed.

In B.C. only five cor-
porations control the
majority of the timber
harvesting rights and
forest production. Time
and time again govern-
ments have been
neglectful or too timid
in regulating those
major forest companies.

Taking tenure away
from the MacMillan
Bloedel’s, the Fletcher
Challenges or the Canfor’s will not necessarily cre-
ate more jobs on its own. Any changes which take
place in the tenure system must be accompanied
by legislation that demands a definite commitment
for job creation.

Change for change sake is not wise unless there
are greater long term

grams where citizens have some way of having
economic democracy over forest stewardships?
How can communities or cooperatives interact
with organized labour? Will smaller tenure holders
support unions or will that type of tenure turn
itself into a bunch of gyppo pack sackers who just
don’t give a damn about the IWA and are impossi-
ble to organize?

Smaller may not be better at all. Certainly Mom
and Pop and their 16 year old son Jethro going out.
to do a little thinning on weekends is not going to
do the industry or the IWA a bit of good.

Without any preconceived notions as to what
the solution should be for the tenure system we
must always be aware of who is ready to buy into
the IWA. Who will support a more diverse but
unionized industry? Are there better ideas that can
come out for the IWA which will cover all of our
concerns?

Under the current tenure system job creation
strategies are out of the question. However you

can be sure that job

job strategies in place.
But clearly we have to
open up some discus-
sion and allow those
who have different
ideas about the tenure
system present them
and debate them.
Either rightly or
wrongly and for the

Any changes in the tenure
system must be accompa-
nied by a legislated com-
mitment to jobs

elimination and job
rationalization is on the
minds of the majority of
corporate managers in
Canada, let alone
British Columbia.

In this column I don’t
offer solutions to the
current situation but I
say the IWA has to be

most part rightly, our

union has been wedded

to a tenure system which gives large corporations
overwhelming power in controlling the province’s
destiny. As such, our collective agreements are
among the best, if not the best in the world. We
should never want to give that up.

Our major gains were made in the 60’s and 70’s
when the industry was expanding and the
resources looked like they would last for decades.
Now in the 90’s we are faced with looming timber
shortages and an industry that is not diversifying
fast enough to create more products, more jobs,
and a fair enough return for the province.

So, I believe we must carefully look for alterna-
tives in the tenure system, as Dan Miller should
surely agree.

So what are some options? The Swedish solu-
tion says smaller, more diverse tenures holders
who are organized in unions and a cooperative
management system. Sweden’s forest industry
which is about the size of B.C.’s, is much more
intensely managed, and creates three times the
direct jobs as our does.

How about community controlled forest pro-

part of creating the

solution because to stay
this course we will probably lose another 10,000
jobs in the next decade. So we have to look for
some answers. :

Our IWA forest policy does set out some specif-
ic arguments for the large tenure holders that say,
within the parameter of area based tenure sys-
tems, there must be an absolute requirement for
the creation and maintenance of jobs.

Our forest policy also says that the woods prod-
ucts industry requires more diversification and a
commitment by governments and corporations.
Our policy says we have to reverse the downward
trend to fewer jobs with growing resource con-
sumption.

There’s no question that large tenure holders
have the technology and capital that have made
the B.C. forest industry one of the most competi-
tive in the world. But we are well paid workers
with fewer jobs to go to.

Sy Pederson is President of IWA-CANADA,
Local 1-363 in Courtenay, B.C. and is a member
of the union's National Executive Board.

TT

4/LUMBERWORKER/JUNE, 1993