EDITORIA

Right-to-work agenda
made to destroy unions

t looks like the labour movement in Canada is in
for a major fight if what is happening in Alberta is
any indication. In Canada’s most conservative
province, a back-bencher pushing a “right-to-
work” agenda has been successful so far.

The government of Ralph Klein has voted to
study the implementation of “right-to-work” laws
which would give workers the option of opting

out of union membership even if the majority of work-
ers voted to join a union.

“Right-to-work” advocates say that an individual
should not have to join a union if she or he doesn’t want
to. In other words those individuals who don’t want to
be union members should still be able to stay in the
workplace along-side dues paying members and still
collect all of the benefits of that unions negotiate.

The more workers that the employers can coax to opt
out of compulsory union membership, the better it is
for the employer. Less dues going into union offices
ox weaker unions that are less likely to fight back.

“Right-to-work’” law, as the Alberta Federation of
Labour's past president Linda Karpovich correctly stat-
ed, “have nothing to do with workers’ rights and ever-
thing to do with reducing wages and undermining our
(unions’) rights to free collective bargaining.”

Free collective bargaining in the work-place means
that employers and labour can bargain freely without
government intervention on an equal a footing as possi-
ble. “Right-to-work” laws take away any equal footing
and tilt the entire playing in favour of employers and de-
unionization.

Workers have a democratic right to join unions. De-
mocratic rights mean the will of the majority. “Right-to-
work” laws don’t protect an individual’s democratic
rights. They only provide for an individual’s choice to
opt out of democracy in the workplace.

In the United States where “right-to-work” laws are in
place the evidence is clear. In states like Alabama, .
Arkansas and North Carolina where these laws are in
effect, there are low levels of unionization. As a result
there are lower standards of living. Plain and simple.

Union security is important for workers and “right-to-
work” laws are designed to take that security away.
When we organize workers one of the first things that
we negotiate with employers is a union security clause.
Without union security language in the collective agree-
ment the union will be neutered.

We believe in democracy for workers, not opting out
of democracy. Employers should not be able to use
“right-to-work” laws to screen out and intimidate work-
ers that are orientated towards unionization. And there
should be no free-loading or piggy backing on collective
agreements. Unions fight for better wages and benefits
and those gains can be taken away from a union with-

@« protection.

The “right-to-work” supporters are clearly those who
do not favour unions in the first place. Their rhetoric
about protecting “individual liberties” is nothing more
than a smokescreen for getting rid of unions.

In the most non-unionized province in the country
that is taking place. The Ralph Klein government which
has been relentless in its budget cutting attacks on the
sick, the poor and the elderly is weilding a mighty club
to break the union movement. By doing so Klein would
better be able to weaken and eliminate public as well as
private sector unions.

That is why the rest of the workers in Canada must
support Albertan workers in this struggle against “right-
to-work” reform. If we don’t defeat this diabolical agen-
da then the union movement will be pushed back into

the dark ages.

Official publication of 1.W.A. CANADA

MAN GERRY STONEY . . President
Nor Edi aaa NEIL MENARD . . Ist Vice-President
FRED MIRON ... 2nd Vice-President
WARREN ULLEY . . 3rd Vice-President
5th Floor, HARVEY ARCAND ... 4th Vice-President
1285 W. Pender Street ‘TERRY SMITH . . Secretary-Treasurer
Vancouver, B.C,
VG6E 4B2

INGRID RICE FOR THe LUMBERWORIKER

RALPH KLEIN PREPARES To CONSULT WITH UNION REPS

United States and Canada on a collision course
over American attempts to cut Cuban trade links

Trade relations between the
United States and its trading
allies are about to hit a very
sour note over an issue that is
creeping out of the woodwork.
For over 34 years the U.S. has
imposed a trade blockade
against the small Caribbean
nation of Cuba. Now the U.S.
is now turning up the heat to
further isolate that country
further extend that trade
blockade to third countries
that trade with Cuba.

After we thought that the
Cold War against communism
has long ended, the U.S. is
about to punish Canada, and
any other country for that
matter, that does trade with
the island nation.

Republican Congressmen
and Senators are pushing a
bill which calls for sanctions
against third countries that
trade and invest in Cuba.
Canada, which has recently
celebrated 50 years of trade
and diplomatic relations with
Cuba, has been told that it has
to give up trade with that
country - or else!

Or else Canada, which im-
ports sugar from Cuba, will
not be allowed to export any
sugar, molasses, or sugar
based product into the U.S.
Even though Canada does not
refine and export Cuban sug-
ar into products for the U.S.
the Americans are poising to
ban all Canadian sugar or sug-
ar products which contain
35% or more sugar.

The American government,
which has tried to cripple the
Cuban economy for nearly 35
years, is about to sanction
Canada, Mexico, the Euro-
pean Union and any other
country that buys Cuban sug-
ar. If it succeeds and Cuba is
unable to sell its sugar, which
is its main source of export
earnings, then that small
country and its people will
suffer unimaginable econom-
ic hardship.

In addition, the Republican
controlled Congress and Sen-
ate are fomenting laws which
will ban Canadian citizens
that work for Canadian com-
panies from entering the Unit-

ed States if the companies
that they work for have made
investments in Cuban proper-
ty that has been nationalized
from former control by Amer-
ican corporations.

Employees from companies
such as Delta Hotels, which
has made considerable invest-
ments in Cuba’s tourism in-
dustry and Sherrit Inc. which
has invested in that country’s
mining and petroleum indus-
try, along with Canadians
from 32 other companies will
be banned from crossing the
border into the United States
if the proposed laws become

The question is
how far the
United States is
prepared to go
in violating our
sovereignty

reality. Their companies will
be banned from trading with
the USS. as well.

Robert Torricelli, a Democ-
ratic Congressman from New
Jersey, says that the U.S. ex-
pects Canada to obey the
laws made in the U.S., even
though they are gross viola-
tions of international trade
law including the North
American Free Trade Agree-
ment.

Said Toriccelli: “I do think
that when nations enter into
free trade agreements, there
is some responsibility to at-
tempt to coordinate their (for-
eign) policy.”

So far Canada’s federal gov-
ernment has informed the
Americans that Canada will
not acquiese or be subject to
U.S. trade laws with respect
to any third country.

At stake, in the Canadian
sugar industry alone, is over
$500 million dollars worth of
products and about 1,400

Canadian jobs. In recent
months the Canadian sugar
industry has had a tough
enough time. Forced to limit
normal sugar exports to the
U.S. in January of this year,
workers have seen jobs cuts
in Western Canada of about
17% of the work force.

Meanwhile the U.S. exports
to Canada, about four times
the amount of sugar each year
that Canada exports to the
U.S. Recently the Canadian
Sugar Institute has called for
a probe against U.S. sugar ex-
ports to Canada which it says
are subsidized at 40% below
the market price of the com-
modity.

To protect Canadian jobs,
22 Members of Parliaments
and 12 Senators have formed
a Canadian sugar lobby which
has marched to Washington
with Mexican Congressmen
to oppose the U.S.’s latest
move. Most of the M.P.’s and
Senators are from the Mar-
itime provinces, where sugar
refineries are very important
to the regional economy.

Since 1960 both Canada
and Mexico have been solid in
their opposition to the U.S.
trade blockade against Cuba,
being the only member coun-
tries of the Organization of
American States to always
have this position.

Now the world is calling for
a lifting of the U.S. blockade.
In a vote of the United Na-
tion’s General Assembly in
January, 101 nations, includ-
ing Canada, voted against the
illegal and immoral blockade.
Only two nations (the United
States and Israel) voted in
favour of it. But even today Is-
raeli corporations are invest-
ing in Cuba.

The fight for our sovereign-
ty and independent foreign
policy are the line. It is over
trade with Cuba today and it
could be over another issue
with another country tomor-
row. The question is how far
is the United States deter-
mined to go in violating the
sovereignty of Canada and
other nations in this new era
of “free trade.”

LUMBERWORKER/JUNE, 1995/5