EDITORIA

Union gears up for major
battle against MacBlo

acMillan Bloedel fired the first shot in
an ongoing battle with the L.W.A.
when it decided to deaccredit from
Forest Industrial Relations in June. It
has upset the apple cart in British Co-
lumbia by its ambitious attempts to
break up association bargaining on
the coast and take on the union, oper-
ation by operation.

The I.W.A. has countered with an application to the
B.C. Relations Board which calls for a ruling to keep all
of MB's sawmill and logging operations as one (see story
page one). A newly formed Council of I.W.A. Locals in-
tends to sit at the table and bargain with all of the compa-
ny’s bargaining units at one time.

We are not going to roll over and allow MB to pick on
or pick off any one operation to drive a cheaper deal - for
whatever reason, whether it be economic or otherwise.

MB is trying to drive a wedge into the I.W.A. and break
up association bargaining which is a system that has, by
and large, been an effective one in preventing wide-
spread labour unrest in the province.

It was Bloedel Stewart, MB's predecessor, that was one
of the major B.C. forest companies that set up associa-
tion bargaining in the 1940's to prevent I. W.A. logging op-
erations from negotiating leapfrog agreements with bet-
ter wages and benefits from one camp than another.

Association bargaining has worked. Companies are
able to compete on a level playing field. MB can’t use its
contractors to drive down wages because those employ-
ers have to sign the same agreement as FIR affiliates.

The B.C. forest industry is the most competitive one in
the world and its workers, namely I.W.A. members, are

accordingly among the highest paid wood workers in the
world. We like it that way and now MB is out to change
all that.

In the ivory towers of MacMillan Bloedel the new buzz-

words are “enterprise bargaining” and “decentralization
of bargaining.” Any way they dress it up it means one
thing — divide and conquer the I.W.A.

‘The I.W.A. is not so foolish to think for one minute that
if MB succeeds that other major companies will not fol-
low suit.

To prevent this our union has negotiated a protocol
agreement which will deal with local issues in plants and
woodlands operations while keeping FIR affiliate compa-
nies together at the bargaining table as one solid unit.

MB says it had to get out of FIR accreditation in order
to deal with local issue. That’s bunk. There is already a
process in place to do just that. The I.W.A. has many such
agreements, with MB and others, which are amicably in
place all over the coast.

What is more perplexing is just why MB would want to
take the I.W.A. on at this point in time when the company
is under the microscope by its investors and financial an-
alysts. Why would it want to pick a fight which could
possibly result in job action against all of its coastal oper-
ations?

Both pulp and paper unions, the Communications, En-
ergy and Paperworkers Union and the Pulp, Paper and
Woodworkers of Canada, are not going to allow MB to
get a cheaper deal than the rest of the industry. They
have stuck together after MB lead the break-up of associ-
ation bargaining in that sector in 1993.

The C.E.P. and the PP.W.C. have also agreed to work
with the LW.A. to coordinate bargaining strategies next

ear,

z Since deaccrediting, MB has rejoined FIR as an “asso-
ciate member.” No doubt it wants to maintain the same
amount of influence as it did when it made up about 29%
of FIR’s dues paying membership.

But the I.W.A. will not allow MB to set the bargaining
agenda as an “associate member.” It will not get a cheap-
er deal than the rest of the industry.

LUIMBERUORKER

Official publication of 1.W.A. CANADA

RMAN GERRY STONEY . . President
No} . Garcia NEIL MENARD .. Ist Vice-President
Editor 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.
VGE 4B2

BROADWAY #2 PRINTERS LTD.

MAC BLO EXECUTIVE TOY

TNGRID RICE FOR THE LUMBER LORKETE

Canadian medicare system on the free trade block as
governments cut funding and increase privatization

There are those of us in the
labour movement who will re-
member well the warnings
that critics of so called "free
trade" agreements gave prior
to the signing of the North
American Free Trade Agree-
ment (NAFTA) in January of
1994. Those critics, many of
whom came from the labour
movement, said that the NAF-
TA would eventually threaten
universal social programs
such as medicare, education,
and social assistance.

Now, over two years later,
those fears have come to
fruition. Indeed medicare may
be on the open bidding block
in the future if the patchwork
of services across Canada con-
tinues to be whittled away by
cash-strapped provincial gov-
ernments.

Transfer payments from the
Federal government for social
programs are being cut at an
increasing rate. In the 1996-97
fiscal year they are being cut
by $2.5 billion and in the up-
coming 1997-98 fiscal year
they will be cut by a further
$4.5 billion.

The result will be that
provincial governments will be
delisting more and more med-
ical services from public fund-
ing. And that will mean that
the loopholes in NAFTA will
allow multi-national corpora-
tions to bid on and take over
services that are not 100%
funded by governments.

The NAFTA will allow large-
scale U.S. health care compa-
nies to set up shop in Canada
to compete for the provision
of a wide range of services,

NAFTA critics argue, with
merit, that those medical care
services not completely cov-
ered by governments and that
are support by private billing,
will not be of "public purpose"
and thus open to free market
economics.

Right now that exposes
broad areas of medical care,
including diagnostic services,
laboratory services, eye care,
fertility treatment, magnetic
resonance imagery, cosmetic
surgery, physiotherapy, psy-

chological counseling and den-
tistry.

In fact some provinces got
into such a panic about the un-
certainty over what could and
what could not be exempted
from the "public purpose" pro-
visions of the NAFTA, that
they, along with some U.S.
state governments, asked for
and got an extension so they
could list all of the services
they want protected before a
deadline.

The original NAFTA dead-
line was set for the end of
1995 but, after much lobbying,
was changed to March 31.
1996. It was then that the
provinces, led by British Co-
lumbia and Quebec, listed all
of the services that they want-
ed protected from open-mar-
ket bidding.

At the last moment the
Canadian government an-
nounced that it had reached
an accord with the United
States and Mexico to exempt
all public sectors (i.e.
medicare, education and so-
cial security) that were under
federal or provincial jurisdic-
tions.

But there still remain some
serious problems. With the
pressure of reduced federal
government spending on so-
cial programs, there will al-
most certainly be certain
provincial governments like
Alberta and Ontario, which
will be privatizing medical ser-
vices. The Ralph Klein govern-
ment is implementing its own
plans to cut provincial funding
for medicare by $900 million
between 1993 - 1997.

What will Canada's medi-
care system look like five
years down the road? Five
years ago the Federal govern-
ment knuckled up 50% of
Canada's social services bill.

Back in February of 1993,
then Federal NDP leader Au-
drey McLaughlin, speaking at.
a National Health Care Work-
ers conference warmed that by
the year 2000, the way federal
transfer cuts were headed,
Canada's provinces would
only receive 23% of funding for

social programs from the fed-
eral government. She rightful-
ly warned of a two-tiered
medicare system as is seen in
the United States.

In that same year U.S. Presi-
dent Bill Clinton's efforts to
put in a universal health care
system were shot down by a
powerfully orchestrated cam-
paign from the American Med-
ical Association, multi-nation-
al drug companies, and health
care corporations. With a Re-
publican dominated Congress
and Senate, it looks like there
won't be any further moves to-
wards a universal health care
package in the United States
for the foreseeable future.

Had the U.S. adopted a
Canadian-style health care sys-
tem, it would have slowed the
upcoming attacks that we will
experience under the NAFTA.
But that hasn't happened.

In March of this year a legal
opinion written by University
of Manitoba lawyer Bryan
Schwartz, for the Canadian
Union of Public Employees
and the Canadian Health Care
Coalition, said that different
health care exemption policies
could eventually wind up in
front of NAFTA disputes pan-
els. And the results could be
negative for preserving med-
icare.

The legal opinion, funded in
part by the Canadian Labour
Congress and social welfare
groups, points out that the
U.S. will argue that services
not 100% paid for by tax dol-
lars will be susceptible to the
open market bidding process.

In the same month, Charles
Laraby, of spokesperson for
the Department of Foreign Af
fairs and International Trade
said: "By and large the Canadi-
an health care system is pro-
tected so there is not cause for
concern. There's adequate
protection in NAFTA for pub-
lic health care."

The Feds say the blanket
exemption for social services
is good enough.

Why then are the provinces
so concerned?

LUMBERWORKER/SEPTEMBER 1996/5