EDITORIA Return to work policy BC FOREST RENEWAL PROPOSALS? YES, OF COURSE I'VE BEEN FORWARDING THEM: ---- WA AIRMAIL ! a natural progression he I.W.A. is about to introduce a new national union policy on the duty to accommodate disabled workers back into the workforce (See story page six). We are becoming one of the first national unions to do so and for good reasons. ‘ Despite all our efforts to have healthier and safer workplaces, our members face much greater risks. We are at least four times more likely to suffer injuries on the job than employees in some other industrial sectors. Few unions have made greater efforts to do more in protecting the interests of their members than the I.W.A. has. A new national policy on the duty to accommodate should go a long way into increasing those protections. Through its activity in supporting the Disabled Forestry Workers of Canada and the National Institute of Disability Management and Research in Port Alberni, B.C., the I.W.A. has gone a long way into improving the lives of members who have been injured both on and off the job. A national policy on return to work is a logical exten- sion of the union’s efforts to date. We are being proac- tive in introducing such a policy. Efforts to date have been piece-meal in nature and more successful in some operations than others. The policy, which is to introduced at the upcoming I.W.A. CANADA National convention during the first week of November, will offer local unions some basic guidelines to go by. Legal decisions, including decisions by the Supreme Court of Canada, are making it imperative that unions and employers play a key role in ensuring that disabled workers are reintegrated. As the B.C. Federation of Labour's Director of Occu- pational Health and Safety John Weir pointed out to union delegates at this past June’s National Safety Con- ference held in Saskatoon, the duty to accommodate the disabled means that “we are actually trying to find our members jobs...(and)...sometimes that involves con- flicts between our members’ jobs.” Programs that invoke the duty to accommodate are not easy to put into practice. They often involve con- flicts around the principle of seniority and creating new positions that do not conflict with existing seniority provisions already in place. Employers must make every reasonable effort to par- ticipate with the union and disabled workers to have comprehensive programs in place. If the employers don’t initiate such action, the union has that responsibil- ity. And unions can become legally liable if they have par- ticipated in establishing measures discriminating against the disabled or refuse to cooperate meaningfully with the company in setting up a return to work pro- gram. What is clear to the I.W.A. is that it is better to get a national policy into place than to leave it up to govern- ment bureaucrats and courts to force solutions upon the workplace. We believe the answers lie with the col- lective will and imaginations of labour and manage- ment. The I.W.A. has a moral obligation to its membership to assist in every way possible and to pick through all of the logistical problems that are involved in setting up programs that work. We have to exert much more influ- ence on employers to see that our members get back on the job after they are hurt. We believe that neither WCB benefits or other insurance benefits programs go far enough in assisting workers regain their rights to a productive work life which can reinstall greater meaning to their lives. LUIMBERUORKER Official publication of 1.W.A. CANADA NORMAN GARCIA GERRY STONEY . . President Editor 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 Vancouver, B.C, VGE 4B2 TERRY SMITH . . Secretary-Treasurer BROADWAY <2 PRINTERS LTD. of i : yy Ey é 8 Ry RY g = MEANWHILE , BACK AT THE MACBLO EXECUTIVE OFFICE... Federal government reaches new heights of hypocrisy in international arena as it claims to defend social programs The Federal government has reached new heights of hypocrisy in recent months. In late September Liberal Fi- nance Minister Paul Martin said that is now time for gov- ernments to give working people a break. Speaking in front of an In- ternational Monetary Fund committee, Martin said that, although unemployment re- mains high, years of slashing deficits and trade liberaliza- tion (i.e. the Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement and then the North American Free Trade Agreement) are begin- ning to pay off. “It is now time to build on these accomplishments, in- deed to go beyond the macro- economic fundamentals in or- der to generate more and better jobs for our citizens,” preached Martin. The Finance Minister said that all of the pain his govern- ment has caused has been necessary to maintain eco- nomic growth and that the Chretien government has tak- en tough decisions to create high quality employment op- portunities and maintain Canada’s social safety net. “This is not deficit reduc- tion for its own sake but rather a deep concern for the sustainability of social pro- grams and shared prosperi- ty...” boasted Martin. Time for a reality check. Unemployment in Canada has skyrocketed under the Liberal regime’s policies. Nobody knows just how high true un- employment is. Statistics Canada says, from month to month, that is is between 9- 10%. Those figures are totally misleading. The Unemploy- ment Insurance program (now renamed “Employment Insur- ance”) is really what is disap- pearing and not joblessness. With tougher qualification requirements, shorter benefit periods and lower insurance payments, the average Cana- dian worker (including the white collar one) has it tougher now than before. Paul Martin is lying on the international stage. Across the country only about 37% of truly unemployed Canadian receive Employment Insur- ance benefits. Last year the B.C. governement estimated that, at some time during 1996, about 120,000 people in the province would lose those benefits. After that it means they either go on provincial welfare roles or starve. Last year the B.C. govern- ment also estimated that 48% percent of the unemployed were receiving benefits and that is down to 35% this year. By the end of this year the federal government, by slash- ing unemployment benefits, will have a E.I. surplus of about $5 billion. A good chunk of that will go to gener- al deficit reduction and not back to support the unem- ployed, even though the en- tire system is funded by work- ers and employers. As far as maintaing social programs, as Martin boasted that his government had done an admirable job. Only the op- posite has happened. In fiscal 1996-1997 transfer payments from the federal government to the provinces were cut by $2.5 billion, to be followed by an astonishing $4.5 billion in fiscal 1997-1998. Those cuts are having and will continue to have deves- tating effects on health care, education and social assis- tance programs in the pro- vinces. For the first time Canadi- ans realize that the sanctity of universal medical care is be- ing questioned. A two-tiered system is not far around the corner as provincial govern- ments are delisting more medical services from public funding (See article in this space - September, 1996 Lum- berworker). So for Martin to go in front of the IMF and talk about how Canada has defended so- cial programs is totally mis- leading. But one must look at the IMF itself and examine its agenda. At the IMF the main task at hand was to discuss some form of debt relief for 20 of the poorest nations in the world. At the meeting Martin endorsed the United States’ position of strict sanc- tions against poor countries that do not adopt “free-mar- ket” policies. Time for another reality check. Mexico is one of the IMF's and World Bank’s lead- ing debtor nations. It is also a signatory to the freest of free market accords, namely the NAFTA. Mexico owes U.S. based banks tens of billions of dollars. After signing the NAFTA in late 1993, the Mexican peso crashed, losing over half of its trading value. As a result un- employment in the already impoverished nation grew even more. In Mexico there is a com- plete absence of unemploy- ment insurance. However, of- ficial government survey figures, as noted in a recent edition of the “Bulletin of the Commission for Labour Coop- eration” issued by the NAFTA governments, says that cur- rent Mexican unemployment has been under 6% for at least the past ten years. Real unemployment is be- lieved to be in the 20-25% range. The truth is that Mexi- co’s unemployment figures are more difficult to obtain than those of Canada’s. Mexi- cans are now faced with a steadily worsening standard of living and fewer and fewer social benefits, while multina- tional NAFTA investors ex- ploit a national pool of cheap labour to compete directly with Canadian and American workers. Since 1993 the Chretien governement has become the champion of free market re- form after promising to resist the NAFTA. Canadian work- ers should be aware of what Paul Martin and Jean Chre- tien are up to and what they are saying about our country when they go abroad. LUMBERWORKER/NOVEMBER 1996/5