me Continued from page 1 The resolution endorsed by the delegates also demanded that the trade union movement be given representation on the board of directors of a new crown telephone utility. Earlier, the convention had outlined a demand for a com- prehensive new energy policy based on “public ownership with na- tionalization of existing companies in all energy fields including extrac- tion, processing and distribution.’’ The resolution, a composite prepared from more than a dozen resolutions submitted by union locals all over the province, also demanded: e A two-price structure for all energy resources with a lower domestic price and higher export price, to encourage the develop- ment of Canadian industry; e Restrictions on the export of non-renewable resources until Canadian needs, both present and future, are assured; e An east-west power grid anda Canadian pipeline systems for distribution of oil and gas across e A halt to any further oil and gas development and a halt to in- creased export until ‘‘the concerns of labor, Native peoples and com- munity groups are heard and acted upon.”’ The energy policy, together with Other related resolutions on resources,. marked an increased focus in the convention on public ownership. and the need to put Canadian-needs before those of the oil multinationals. Fishermen’s union delgate George Hewison told the conven- tion that there were a number of projects underway which were of “staggering magnitude. “Their sole intent is to take our resources out,’’ he said, citing the Dome Petroleum plans for a huge liquified natural gas project pro- ducing gas for export and the ma- jor project currently under negotia- tion to export northwest B.C. coal to Japan. ‘Private industry is developing projects with our tax-deferred dollars,’ he charged, ‘‘and it’s time we did it ourselves. ‘Public ownership and control is basic to any energy policy — to make sure that we look not only at our own future but our children’s future.”’ An earlier resolution demanding restrictions on the export of raw resoursces and urging ‘‘support for the principle of public control of all resources’’ was sent back to com- mittee with demands from delegates that it be strengthened to advocate ‘‘public ownership and democratic control of all re- sources. NDP leader Dave Barrett, dur- ing a speech to the convention Tuesday in which he took aim at the Socred government and its many scandals, also focussed on the energy issue. He told delegates that domina- tion of the country by the oil multinationals had made them ‘‘se- cond class citizens. “The only way you can go first class is with complete public ownership of all oil and all gas,”’ he said. The public sector employees in British Columbia are up in arms over the proposed Financial: Ad- ministration Act, a discussion paper produced by the provincial ministry of finance. Section 66 of the paper reads as follows: “Employee relations 66. (1) The Lieutenant Governor in Council may make regula- tions with respect to the con- duct of personnel managem ent, employee relations and collective bargaining by a public body. ; (2) Without limiting subsec- tion (1) the Lieutenant Gov- emor in Council may make regulations a) designating the Treasury Board as the bargaining agent for a public body or group of public bodies; b) requiring a group of public bodies to form an employers’ organization to apply for ac- creditation as their bargaining agent under the labor code; c) requiring a public body to join an employers’ organiza- tion accredited as a bargaining agent under the code; d) prescribing systems to used by a public body or group of public bodies for control of staffing levels and for organization and classifi- cation of personnel; and e) setting rates of employee compensation, fees, expenses and allowances not covered by a collective agreement. ’ (3) The Treasury Board may exercise its functions under subsection 2(a) through the agency of the Government Employee Relations Bureau. The aim of this draft legislation is to abolish or greatly weaken the Published weekly at Suite 101 — 1416 Commercial Drive, Vancouver, B.C. V5L 3X9. Phone 251-1186 Read the paper that fights for labor City ertown .S.25... 95:55 Postal Gode =o... 25. oo ks : I am enclosing: Tyear$10 (1) 2years $181 6 months $6 (1 Old (J NewCL Foreign 1 year $12 0 Donation §$. PACIFIC TRIBUNE—NOV. 28, 1980—Page 12 TRIBUNE PHOTO— SEAN GRIFFIN oil and gas industry. bargaining rights of a major section of the B.C. work force. This objec- tive of the Socred government goes beyond reducing the bargaining rights enjoyed by provincial civil servants under the Public Service Relations Act. The Socreds have set their sights on taking away the right of free collective bargaining from all public employees at the local and provincial level. I discussed this matter with dele- gates to the B.C. Federation of La- bor convention from the Canadian Union of Public Employees (a un- ion with 245,000 members in Can- ada, and 28,000 in B.C.). They be- lieve this proposed legislation con- stitutes a real danger to their union, to all public employees and ulti- mately to free collective bargaining for the private sector. They told me it affects all work- ers in what can be defined as be- longing to the public sector — em- ployees of crown corporations, municipalities, school boards, pub- lic libraries, universities, colleges, public and private hospitals, and also statutory licensing bodies like the law society. They said that even if municipal- ities and regional districts will be re- moved from the list as the minister of finance has promised since the Act was circulated for discussion, it would still, if enacted, remove long-held collective bargaining rights from significant numbers of public sector employees. They pointed out that the scheme is very similar to the one proposed in 1977 by the Govern- ment Employee Relations Bureau in hearings held by Richard Hig- gins on the operation of the Public Service Labor Relations Act for provincial government employees. There, the bureau recommended amendment of the Act to cover the entire public sector, thus establish- ing a separate law governing labor relations outside of the jurisdiction of the Labor Relations Board for all public sector employees. Despite all the justified criticism of the labor code which is administered by the board, the removal of muni- cipal, school board, hospital, re- gional district and crown corpora- tion employees from the coverage B.C. FED DELEGATES . . . unanimous in demanding takeover of B.C. of the code would bea retrogressive step. The bitter experience of the postal workers under federal leg- islation is a good example of what could happen. _ According to CUPE, the intent is clearly.to ensure that public sec- tor employees never again enjoy the same level of rights as private sector employees. My opinion is that if the cabinet can impose such restrictions on public sector em- ployees, the rights of private sector employees will be seriously en- dangered. Subsection one would give the cabinet unlimited power to wipe out the bargaining rights of “‘public bodies’’ as defined ‘by the Act — which would, in effect remove them from the coverage of the labor code. This power could be ex- ercised by regulation with no union input and no debate. Section two offers alternatives for the cabinet short of the removal of bargaining rights. Subsection 2(a) would designate the Govern- ment Employees Labor Relations Bureau as the bargaining agent for any public body. Local unions of CUPE for ex- ample, would no longer be able to bargain directly with their em- ployer. Citizens, in turn, would lose the democratic right to control the policies of local government. A centralized body would con- | trol collective bargaining divorced from the day-to-day administra- tion of the contract, and from any accountability to the local com- munity. For the municipal employ- ees, this would mean having to deal with a faceless and monstrous bu- reaucracy, with little or no feeling - for the individual worker, a bu- reaucracy responsible only to the provincial government. Subsection 2(b) and (c) would impose membership in employer organizations upon public bodies. This would make it almost im- possible to deal effectively with local issues. Section 2(d) would allow cabinet to impose staffing levels and job classifications upon ‘‘public bod- ies.”’ That would eliminate collect- ive bargaining in those vital areas of concern for the workers. Subsection 2(e) would allow cab- inet to set compensation levels for supervisors and other staff exclud- ed from the union certification. In effect, this is yet another attempt to allow a central bureaucracy to set wage standards for “‘public em- ployees’’ throughout the province, Telephone, public ownership of without reference to local needs, variations and preferences. Section 65 of the Act would give the cabinet power to decide when 4 ‘public body’? may or must put work out to contract. That section could be used to increase the num- ber of public sector jobs lost through contracting-out. All this seems to fit into the anti- labor pattern which the Employers’ Council of British Columbia has devised for the Socred government. If the government has any hesita- tion about adopting these propos- als with its small majority in theleg- islature, it is because it fully realizes that an aroused trade union move- ment could guarantee its defeat in the next election. As these lines were being written, the public sector committee of the Federation was waiting to place the following action program before the convention delegates: Recommendations of the Public Sector Committee: 1. That the Federation continueits policy of militant organization- al support against legislation unilaterally introduced by the provincial and federal govern- ments; 2. That the Federation, in consul- tation with its affiliates, make contracting-out a major issue during the next 12 months; 3. That the Public Sector Com- mittee continue to develop a campaign aimed at removing all legislated restrictions on free collective bargaining in the pub- lic sector; : 4. That the Federation demand that the Financial Administra- ‘tion Act be withdrawn; 5. That the Federation, in cooper- ation with the affected affili- ates, undertake a public cam- paign against the proposed Act; 6. That the Federation support any affiliate which chooses to defy the proposed Acct, if imple- mented. 7. That the Federation express its opposition to the policy of the provincial government of not adequately funding or supply- ing needed social services; and 8. That the Public Sector Com- mittee investigate and develop a policy regarding the negative impact of the use of so-called “non-profit”’ societies to de- liver social services. : Such a program, if aggressively pushed, could compel the Socreds to file the act in the wastebasket.