by Bob White

The release of the government’s
long-awaited “action plan” on social
security formally launches one of the
most intense public debates on social
security in recent memory. The out-
come of the review will effect every
Canadian; it will determine whether
we explore new ways to strenghthen
communities through social security,
or continue the social disintegration
of recent years.

From health care to child care, un-
employment to pensions, the labour
movement has a long tradition of so-
cial solidarity. For us, the choice is
clear: we need strong social programs
and an economy that is controlled in
the public interest.

Can Canada move ahead to create a
stronger system? Perhaps. But not if
we are blinded by myths that prevent
our exploring all options. It will be a
fruitless debate if we accept that our
system is generous and wasteful. Or
that we cannot spend any more on so-
cial programs without destroying pub-
‘lic finances. Or that social security
should only be for those who are is
desperate need. Or the social pro-
grams are bad for the economy.

Why race to the bottom? When we
take pride in our social security net
it’s usually because we are comparing
it with the American model. But doing
better than the Americans isn’t much
of an accomplishment; theirs is one of
the least developed social-security
systems in the industrialized world.
Its flaws have contributed to wide-
spread poverty, tremendous inequality
and social unrest that make so many
Canadians glad to be different.

When we look instead to other in-
dustrialized nations, we have little
reason to feel proud. Countries poorer
that ours have found ways to address
needs that we continue to ignore.
They provide better (and less demean-
ing) welfare for those in need, child
care for working families, and public
pensions that allow retirement with
dignity.

Their unemployment-insurance sys-
tems offer higher benefit rates for
longer periods. Compared with the
United States, ours might look like a
“Cadillac” system; beside others, it
looks more like a tricycle.

Why chase the United States to the
bottom of the social-security ladder
instead of climbing to the level of

countries, poorer that us, which satis-
fy their social needs?

Another dollar spent and we’re
dead! The commandment has been
given: Thou shall not spend any new
money. Before the review has even
begun, the government, financial ana-
lysts, editorial writers and business
leaders have accepted the catechism.
They insist that all ideas for new ini-
tiatives must be balanced by cuts to
other areas. They want to deal with
unemployed parents by making unem-
ployed parents poorer. Any new
spending, they insist, would lead to fi-
nancial ruin for the country.

These are false prophets. Concerns
for federal finances may constrain any
near-term expansion of social securi-
ty, but to say that Canada can’t afford
to expand social security is like saying
a United Way contribution is beyond
the means of a bank president.

Canada still has one of the highest
per-capita incomes in the world. We
spend 2.5% less of our national in-
come on social spending than the “ay-
erage” industrialized country; we’d
have to spend another $18 billion just
to catch up. And if we wanted to place
fourth in the Oraganization for Eco-
nomic Co-operation and Development
- a typically modest Canadian objec-
tive - we would have to spend an addi-
tional $70 billion a year. That’s like
adding 3% new UI programs!

Targeting the needy or creating a
need? Is universality outmoded?
Should all programs be targeted only
to those in great need? These question
aren't really about allocating limited
resources; they're about using social
security only to pick up the pieces af-
ter people have already found them-
selves in desperate straits.

A strong system of social security
gives all workers the kind of benefits
that would otherwise be for only to
the most fortunate. A weak system
forces workers to rely on workplace
benefits. This is no problem for orga-
nized workers who work for large
firms under good collective agree-
ments, but where does it leave the
larger and growing number of work-
ers that don’t have these benefits? Our
workforce is changing; more and
more Canadians work for small busi-
ness, in the service industry or in
short-term jobs. They and others dis-
advantaged by the labour market need

programs that their employers cannot
or will not provide.

Just because a program is govern-
ment run doesn’t mean it costs tax-
payers money. Programs such as the
Canada Pension Plan, unemployment
insurance, and workers compensa-
tion, which are designed to replace
the earnings of workers, are paid for
by workers and employers. They are
not targeted to those most in need.
but they certainly limit the size of the
“in need” population. They are self fi-
nancing. If the government’s review
results in reduced benefits, it must
also end in reduced premiums and
contributions. That won't reduce the
national debt, but it will put more
Canadians “in real need.”

Not down the drain but in our pock-
ets. A strong economy needs social
programs, but a weak one needs them
even more. They do more than help
Canadian families. They contribute to
Canada’s economic well-being, they
offset the ups and downs of the busi-
ness cycle, they keep the economy ac-
tive in depressed regions, and they
help workers move from one job to
the next, or from one economic sector
to another.

° Strong social programs contribute to the economic well-being of Canadians
and help offset the ups and downs of the business cycle.

Social spending is not money down
the drain. It’s money that stays in the
economy and keeps activity going. It
is spent in businesses and communi-
ties around the country. Unlike the
economic high-flyers who want to dis-
mantle the system, the recipients of
social-security don’t put their money
in Carribean tax shelters or hide it in
Swiss bank accounts.

However strong the social net is, it
can’t compensate for a failed labour
market. The real task for the govern-
ment is to develop the-jobs and
labour-market conditions that are a
strong foundation for social security.

Without a committment to jobs, pay
equity, and strong labour regulation -
including decent minimum-wage and
collective bargaining laws - this re-
view will be no more than an argu-
ment over Band-Aid solutions.

Canada is still suffering from the
failed economic policies of the 1980's.
Canadian families and their communi-
ties have been hurt. This review has to
do more that separate the wounded
and determine the size of the Band-
Aids.

Bob White is the president of the
Canadian Labour Congress.

e The negotiating committee met with the industry 43 time:
are some of its members, 4th V.P. Harvey Arcand, President Gerry Stoney, Ist
V.P. Neil Menard, and Local 1-3567 president Dave Tones.

8 on the coast. 1 tor

B.C. contract

Continued from page one

per employee hour worked in both
years.

The injection of funds will make the
plan fully funded within 8 years, thus
giving IWA members on of the best
funded of major Canadian pension
plans. 3

The union’s Long Term Disability
plan got some help as well. As of June
15, 1995 there will be benefit increas-
es of $100 per month for existing
claimants. At the same time there will
be a new L.T.D. rate of $1,600.00 for
new claimants on or after that date.

Other areas of improvement to the
collective agreement are as follows:
TICKET TRADES PREMIUM -
Retroactive increases of 29 cents to a
total of 50 cents per hour (for trades
listed in Article X).

GRADING TICKETS PREMIUM -
Retroactive to last expiry date, in-
crease by 15 cents to a total of 25
cents.

FIRST AID TICKET PREMIUM -
Upon attaining certificates required
by WCB: 20 cents/hour for Level 2 and
85 cents/hour for Level 3.

LOGGING WAGE RATE REVI-

SION PROGRAM - for the Coast, a
new plan to evaluate new or revised
logging juobs, and establish logging
category rates.

SEVERANCE PAY FOR LOGGERS
- Severance pay for loggers who lose
jobs as a result of permanent clo-
sures,

LIFE INSURANCE AND ACCI-
DENTAL DEATH AND DISMEM-
BERMENT - Now members have 24
hour A.D.& D coverage. Increase in
Life Insurance: $45,000 to $50,000 in
first year, $55,000 in second, and
$60,000 in third.

WEEKLY INDEMNITY BENEFITS
- Current level of $429.00 per week
will be increased to $439.00 in 1995
and $449.00 in 1996.

EXTENDED HEALTH CARE AND
VISION CARE - Vision care in-
creased in June of 1995 by $50.00 to
$120.00; In 1995 physiotheraphy cov-
erage will be doubled to $500.00 per
calendar year; Chiropractic/Naturo-
pathic coverage will be doubled to
$400.00 per calendar year in 1995.
DENTAL PLAN - As of June 1994 the
plans’ cost sharing percentage in-
creased by 10% for both plans C and D
so that the plans’ share is 60%; Plan
C’s maximum is increased to
$2,500.00”

2/LUMBERWORKER/NOVEMBER, 1994