EDITORIA

Filmon government
rakes Manitoba’s poor

hen Manitobans go back to the
election polls some time likely
within a year, many will be think-
ing about the scandal of how, in
1995, the Conservative govern-
ment of Gary Filmon tried to prop
up the election efforts of three
“independent” aboriginal candi-

dates to siphon votes off of the New Democratic Party.

Corruption and cover-ups in the vote-rigging scandal
will definitely be on voters’ minds. Another issue that
should be on voter’s minds is the issue of the minimum
wage in Manitoba and how the Filmon government has
ignored key recommendations of a Minimum Wage
Review Board in order to keep thousands of workers
mired in poverty.

Confidential documents obtained by the Winnipeg Sun
in January of this year revealed that the Tories have
rejected board chairman Jack McJannet’s recommenda-
tion to raise the minimum wage to $6.25 by October 1999.

Mr. McJannett wrote, in a report to the government,
that minimum wage earners are having a tough go of it
and that those who are working for the current $5.40 an
hour can only clear about $625.00 a month. That’s
$625.00 for food, shelter, clothing, transport and every-
thing else that the minimum wage earner (and their fam-
ily) needs to survive.

Wrote McJannet, following a review of minimum wage:
“Tt became clear...that an employee, at the present mini-
mum wage, was unable to purchase the necessities of life
and health.”

Premier Filmon doesn’t need help to interpret what
that means. If a person can’t purchase basic necessities
that means a life of poverty and misery for them and their
family.

In response to the board’s recommendations, Filmon
will raise the minimum wage to $6.00 an hour by next
month, the first time in three years that Manitobans have
received an increase. Ten years ago — that’s right — ten

years ago the minimum wage was $4.70 an hour, which
means that by April, the average annual hourly minimum
wage salary will have increased by 13 cents per year!

Over that past decade inflation, measured by the Con-
sumer Price Index in Manitoba, increased by 30% while
the minimum wage only increased by 15%, as impover-
ished workers have fallen farther and farther behind.
Even if the minimum wage had kept up to increases in
inflation increases, it would already be $6.12 an hour.

If employer representatives on the board had their way,
minimum wage earners would be given a raise of 25 cents
an hour on July 1, 1999 and then be boosted up to the
princely sum of $5.90 per hour by December 1, 1999. For
restaurant servers and other tipped earners, the employer
representatives recommended that no wage increase be
provided. The same goes for new employees for a proba-
tionary period of three months.

To add insult to injury, the government has refused Mr.
McJannet’s recommendation that minimum wages be
reviewed annually. Filmon was pressured by the Cana-
dian Federation of Independent Business which said that
such reviews are a serious issue for the business commu-
nity because wages tend to go up when they are reviewed.

So the message emanating from the Filmon government
is to keep wages down the below poverty line levels and
kill any effort to even review them.

In a submission to the provincial government in Decem-
ber of 1997 the Manitoba Federation of Labour recom-
mended that the minimum wage be set at least at 60% of
the average weekly wage in the province.

Read the submission: “Over the years the MFL has
urged government of different ideologies to end the inces-
sant cycle of minimum wage earners in Manitoba falling
behind other jurisdictions, and then being raised to the
middle of the pack. This cycle of poverty, followed by
greater poverty can easily be ended by pegging the mini-
mum wage to a percentage of the average weekly wage in
Manitoba.”

LUIMBERUORKER

Official publication of the
Industrial, Wood and Allied Workers of Canada

DAVE HAGGARD . . President
RA Gant NEIL MENARD . . 1st Vice-President
HARVEY ARCAND . 2nd Vice-President
DAVID TONES . . 8rd Vice-President
5th Floor, NORM RIVARD | 4th Vice-President
1285 W. Pender Street WILF McINTYRE . . 5th Vice-President
Vancouver, B.C. TERRY SMITH . . Secretary-Treasurer

V6E 4B2
BROADWAY .gj PRINTERS LTD.

NO WOOD FROM BC. OLD GROWTH FORESTS WAS
USED TO PRODUCE THIS SNEAKER.

Viceaia Ties (nonist-pist BY Kato PRessinc touws.caesdecateon.com

Mexican poor suffer under NAFTA

If you were to believe the
business reporters in this
country you would believe
that life in Mexico is getting
better after five years of liv-
ing under the North Ameri-
can Free Trade Agreement.
Newspaper after newspaper
in Canada, has called the
NAFTA a success. There is
no criticism to be had.

After all, the increase in
trade between the United
States, Canada and Mexico
has benefited all three coun-
tries, right? Who could doubt
this conventional wisdom?

We say why not look at
the effects that NAFTA has
had on Mexican workers and
their families. After all —
that would be the noble thing
to do. Why not look at the
weakest economic partner of
the three countries where
surely the benefits of the
NAFTA’s first five years
must be greater and more
pronounced!

Fortunately someone has
already done that. In Decem-
ber of last year Public Citi-
zen, the noted consumer
advocacy group founded by
Ralph Nader in the early
1970’s released a report card
on the NAFTA and here are
some of the details about
what it found.

Far from making the Mex-
ican working class an exam-
ple of shiny, happy people,
the NAFTA has had quite
the opposite effect.

Since the trade agree-
ment’s enactment, there has
been at least a 20% increase
in the number of Mexicans
who are living below the
minimum wage, which is
only $3.50 U.S. a day. By
the end of 1997, according
to Public Citizen, salaries
for that country’s working
class had fallen to only 60%
of their value at the onset of
the NAFTA in 1994, which

receded the crash of the
exican peso.

The report card also sites
a study by a group called the
Coalition for Justice in the
Maquiladoras, the free trade
factory zones which have
created over 450,000 jobs for
Mexico since 1994. That
study says that in the mar-
ket zones, a basic package of
food, rent, gas, water, elec-
tricity, refrigeration and

water takes up about $54.00
U.S. ofan average net weekly
pay of $55.47. This leaves
the average maquila worker
with $1.77 for everything
else including medical atten-
tion.

Under NAFTA, as the
Washington-based U.S. Feed
Grains Council points out,
all of the Mexican govern-
ment’s supports for domes-
tic corn industry are to be
phased out completely in 15
years. On January 1 of this
year the Mexican govern-
ment announced the elimi-
nation of subsidies for tor-
tilla production in the

country.
That move, which saw

prices jump by 55%, sparked
wide-spread protests as tor-

Multinational
corporations .are

profiting from
the NAFTA and
not Mexican
workers who
are facing
increasing levels
of poverty and
misery.

tillas, made of corn, water
and lime, are the staple food
among the vast majority of
Mexicans. According to the
Mexican Nutritional Insti-
tute, 3/4’s of the country’s
population of 95 million get
the bulk of their daily caloric
intake from tortillas. The
subsidy elimination would
put tortillas out of reach.
Already, under the NAFTA
which has eliminated food
subsidies, millions can no
longer regularly afford to
buy milk, rice, and beans,
which are also staples.

As one social activist in
Mexico said: “Eliminating
tortilla subsidies will break
their (the poor’s) back.”

As a result of the protests,
the Mexican government,

headed by “free trader” pres-
ident Ernesto Zedillo, backed
down and put a ceiling on
the retail price of tortillas at
54 cents U.S. per kilogram.

According the U.S. Bureau
of Labour Statistics, maquila
trade zone-created jobs pay
wages that are 16% lower
than in the rest of Mexico’s
manufacturing sectors even
though they are the leading
source of job creation for the
country. <
© Sanvary8938-Septern

ber 1998 study showed that
the productivity of Mexican
workers has jumped by
36.4% while their wages had
fallen by 29% between ‘93-
’97. Eight million Mexicans
have been pushed out of the
middle class and have joined
the 60%, of the nation’s
labour force that live under
the poverty liné: Salaried
members of the middle ’class
also saw a 34% loss in pur-
chasing power since Janu-
ary, 1994.

According to the report
card, the maquilas are
spreading to Mexico’s inte-
rior regions as well a within
the traditional border
regions. But that’s not to
say that some interests are
not profiting. Quite the con-
trary. The some 300 maquila
operations, owned by for-
eign investors profit from
some 70% of Mexico’s exports
while they use only about
6% of the country’s own
inputs in their exported
products.

According to U.S. Depart-
ment of Commerce statis-
tics, manufactured exports
to the United States from
Mexico shot up by 129%
between 1993 and 1997,
while net wages for Mexican
workers plummeted.

Tt doesn’t take a genius to
figure out that multinational
corporations are the ones
that are profiting from the
NAFTA and not Mexican
workers who are facing
increasing levels of poverty
and misery.

So the next time that
labour says labour rights
and other protections are
need in trade agreements —
pay more attention.

LUMBERWORKER/MARCH, 1999/5