PRESI MESSAG

The I.W.A. can grow
as a national union

by Dave Haggard

%, Tior to becoming the National Presi-
|S \dent of L.W.A. CANADA on January
| _ /80 of this year, I had a chance to get

2 ~ out there and see more of what our
I | union is all about. During the elec-
eae tion campaign I toured through vari-
ous parts of Ontario and the B.C. Interior to
witness the wide diversity that our union has.

Since the 1930s we have never been just a
union that consists of only millworkers and log-
gers. Today we are becoming an increasingly
diverse organization with workers in service in-
dustries and various manufacturing sectors as
well as traditional areas of the forest industry.

We represent working people in a baseball
and hockey stick plant, a carpet backing facto-
ry, home care facilities, a metal office equip-
ment manufacturer, plastic container plants,
credit unions and school supplies distribution.

So it is for good reason that, at our national
convention in 1994, we changed our union’s
name to the Industrial, Wood and Allied Work-
ers of Canada to reflect the broader base of
our membership.

One of the issues that I campaigned on was
organizing and union building. That means
building a truly national union which repre-
sents the interests of Canadian workers in all

sectors of the work-
force.

I firmly believe
that any rank and
file worker in any
sector should and
can become a mem-
ber of our union. We
have one of the
most democratic
unions in this coun-
try and I think it is
imperative that we
continue to get out
there and tell work-
ing people and their
communities what
we are all about.

Recently the Na-
tional Officers and
Executive Board of
the union met to
discuss the issue of revamping organizing
across our union. At this time there is some
serious planning taking place to best use our
resources to organize and educate new I.W.A.
members.

At this point in our history we have about
45,000 members across Canada, about 2/3’s of
whom are employed in the forest industry. The
fact that today we have about 1/3 of the mem-
bership spread out in various other industrial
and service sectors is a pretty good indication
of where we are headed as a national organi-
zation.

There are tens of thousands of unorganized
workers out there that need to hear about our
union and that is just what I intend to see hap-
pen.

Most of our members
are in B.C. Second on
the numbers list is On-
tario, followed by the
prairie provinces and
then Quebec and New
Brunswick, both of
which have only two
1.W.A. operations.

Since becoming Na-
tional President I have
issued the challenge
that we should try to
double the member-
ship of our union in the
foreseeable future. The
strategy that we must
take must be a national
one in focus that at-
tends to the needs of
workers in every
province.

In mid-March our union held a special two
day conference on women’s issues, attended
by fifty women from seventeen local unions
across Canada (for coverage see next issue of
the Lumberworker). It is clear that the call for
this conference and the various issues dis-
cussed at it are paving the way for more par-
ticipation, from women, in our union.

I believe that women will play key roles in the
future of the I.W.A. In terms of organizing,
women will play an essential role in communi-
cating the objectives of trade unionism to our fu-
ture Sisters and Brothers in all parts of Canada.

I am proud to represent the membership of
the I.W.A. and am confident in the strong leader-
ship that exists at the local and sub-local union
levels of our organization which will assist us in
reaching out to build our national union.

Green groups short
on job solutions

by Kim Pollock

WA 4 Phen talk turns to jobs, the conversa-
\ \ | /tion with green groups ends. That’s

\ ry dling environment and land-use is-

sues.
j Environmentalists are happy to
talk about forests. They'll talk about ways to har-
vest or not harvest timber. They'll even talk about
forest-sector employment levels, which they’re
usually convinced is in free fall due to technologi-
cal change but which they also believe is unaffect-
ed by land-use decisions. And they will earnestly
tell you that we simply aren't creating enough jobs
per cubic metres and “something” should be done
about it.

But if you want to clear a roomful of conserva-
tionists or environmentalists, all you need to do is
ask what plans they have to create real jobs to re-
place those they say are being lost due to tech
change or those they want to eliminate as part of
their current proposal for parks or other restric-
tions on timber harvesting.

And if you really want to be alone, tell them
you'd like to hear ways to create decent-paying
union jobs. The answer, once you pry it out of
them, is...that they have no answers.

Some recent examples.

Eco-Trust, the big, U.S.-based environmental
group, was instrumental in creating the 317,000
hectare Kitlope protected area on B.C.’s north
coast. Recently, Eco-Trust announced it wants to
protect the adjacent Kawesas valley, as well.

Having heard Eco-Trust’s B.C. front-man Ian Gill
on the radio crying crocodile tears about jobs, I
called him. He assured me Eco-Trust is indeed
very concerned about workers, jobs and communi-
ties. He said he wanted to “open a dialogue” with
I.W.A. CANADA and he promised to send me infor-
mation on Eco-Trust’s job creation proposals.
Months passed before I received a package of
glossy promotional material - no job creation
ideas.

Similarly, I’m still waiting for the David Suzuki
Foundation. Last year, following publication of a
Suzuki Foundation report on employment in the
forest industry, Warren Ulley and I challenged Jim

Fulton, the organization’s executive director, to

“provide any suggestions
might have in the area of
job-creation, especially
those that would allow
good-paying, union jobs.”
That was after we out-
lined at length our views
on job creation in the for-
est sector.

But even though the
Suzuki Foundation
claims to have “solutions
to the most serious prob-
lems facing the planet,” it
apparently offers no so-
lutions at all to the problem of forest-sector em-
ployment. Months have passed - no reply.

The Western Canada Wilderness Committee
also clammed up when asked for job-creation
ideas. At a meeting in
Vancouver one WCWC

ber harvesting in Ontario’s Temagami, Algonquin
Park and Algoma Highlands; undermining public
confidence in B.C.’s new Forest Practices Code.

The bottom line: don’t look to environmental
groups for ideas on job creation. They don’t have
any and they seem not to care about workers or
forest-based communities. What happens to those
folks and their communities is no concern of
theirs. I'd like to say I believed better of them, but
the overwhelming evidence says it’s true.

So, if you find yourself, as so many of our mem-
bers are these days, on a land-use round-table, in-
sist on “no net job loss in the forest sector” as a
key position or interest. That means that either
the proposed parks or other protected areas must
be located so that they don’t impact our members’
jobs or that real jobs are in place to replace the af-
fected ones. “Real” jobs means backed up with in-
vestment capital, markets, technology and all the

“ other things that will

speaker supported a
plan for a 250,000
hectare park in B.C.’s
Lower Mainland by sug-
gesting that everyone,
including forest work-
ers, stands to benefit
from WCWC’s plans.
We wrote to WCWC
asking them to specify

What happens to workers or
forest-based communities
is of no concern to
environmental groups

make them fly...and a
collective agreement.
No jobs, no parks.

In the words of our
new I.W.A. CANADA
Forest Policy:

“.. . carefully scruti-
nize all proposals for
removal of lands from
the working forest.
They must be justified

job-creation measures
ae replace those the park would eliminate. No re-
ply.

In reply to an article in the B.C. Environment
Network's newsletter that reported enthusiastical-
ly the Suzuki Foundation report mentioned above,
I outlined .W.A. CANADA’s position on jobs, tech
change and forest-sector employment issues. I
ended with the usual challenge: “We would love to
see any suggestions you might have toward (a
healthy forest industry), particularly if they meant
continued high wages and decent benefits, im-
proved safety standards and better working condi-
tions.” BCEN published the letter, but no sugges-
tions were forthcoming.

That's largely because you get a better, clearer
indication of their position with respect to jobs
when you read a recent news release from several
of B.C.’s leading environmental groups. They
urged the B.C. government to let Evans Forest
Products Ltd. go into bankruptcy, thus killing 500
jobs and taking the towns of Golden and Malakwa
with them. Fortunately, the provincial government
ignored the greens and the mills are now re-
opened.

Many of the same organizations have now
launched new campaigns: the scary federal Endan-
gered Species Protection Act; efforts to halt tim-

as essential to the bio-
physical well-being of the forests; they must be
shown to be better candidates than others that do
not require disruption of the forest industry. We
will particularly reject proposals based on aesthet-
ic, cosmetic or other considerations that lack any
scientific basis.” i

Remember, although you might care about your
job, your family or your community, the folks you
‘will be facing across the table do not share your

concerns.
RR

UBC’s Pat Marchak wrote recently, unhappy
that my November, 1996 column could ve tae to
imply that she is among Canadian ot lone
groups or individuals who have received U.S. om
dation dollars to carry on their propaganda
paigns against the forest sector. I apologize for any
misunderstanding: I was suggesting not that Dr.
Sareter receives U.S. foundation One a

at she is among those “trying to undermine -
ments about the fared sector's ability to support
jobs.” My criticism of the content of her speech at
the World Commission on Forestry in Winnipeg, of
course, stands,

Kim Pollock is the Director of I.W.A. CANADA’s

Environment and Land-Use Department.

4/LUMBERWORKER/APRIL, 1997