oF r | & Bsc WOMEN’S CONFERENCE .. . delegates stress fight for equal pay, organizing the unorganized. —Sean Griffin photo Women target of UIC cuts, conference told Women are going to be among the first targets if changes in unemployment insurance are allowed to go into effect, Mary Eady, assistant director of the Canadian Labor Congress Women’s Bureau told a_ B.C. Federation of Labor conference on women’s rights Saturday. “We shouldn’t let those changes go by without a lot of protest, without a lot of people speaking out against them,”’ she said. Eady, one of several speakers at the two-day conference in Van- couver emphasized that women should focus on a number of key tasks including the fight for equal pay, the organization of the unorganized the right to equal job opportunities — including the right to a job. “And the fight for equal pay must be won at the workplace, not by expecting justice from equal pay laws”’, she said, citing the case of women workers at a bank note printer in Ottawa who were unable to win their battle for equal pay through legal means but have now begun to organize to establish equal pay in their collective agreement. Tom Fawkes, research director for the International Woodworkers of America, who warned the 200 delegates about the campaign for right-to-work laws being waged by the Independent Contractors and Businessmen’s Association, and Artha Adair, Seattle Co-ordinator for the Amalgamated Clothing and Textile Workers’ Union also ad- dressed the conference. Adair outlined the long battle fought by ACTWU to organize in the notoriously anti-union J. P. Stevens textile plants in the US. The company has repeatedly flouted U.S. court orders in its bid to stall union organization and thwart the. massive international boycott of its products. Stevens markets both sheets and towels in stores in this province under various brand names in- cluding Fine Arts and Utica. Unions protest contract Continued from page 1 that if they were forced to pay the discriminatory freight rates to bring steel from eastern com- panies they could not remain competitive. Unions in steel fabricating had appealed for exemption of B.C. companies from the import duty in order to protect the jobs of B.C. steelworkers. Marineworkers delegate Walt Jacobs told the labor council Tuesday that the awarding of the contract was a clear example of Prt inebtie dS). Sak ced. “ aa what Algoma had sought to achieve by its demands for the import duty. - Ironworkers’ delegate Frank Nolan also noted that the provincial government had ap- parently abandoned an earlier provincial policy of giving B.C. companies a 5 percent preference. “The B.C. company was underbid by only 1-1/2 percent,” he said. “The government’s position is absolutely unacceptable — it will only create more unemployment in the province,” he said. RiBUNE Back the paper that fights for labor SUBSCRIBE NOW Cl:p and mail to: 101 - 1416 COMMERCIAL DR., VANCOUVER, B.C. V5L 3X9 NNN RENO PACIFIC TRIBUNE—SEPTEMBER 22, 1978—Page 12 The president of Local 213 of the International Brotherhood of Electrical: Workers is not happy about the outcome of what was billed as the first Canadian con- vention of the Building Trades Department of the AFL-CIO. Of course, he isn’t the only one who is unhappy about this low-grade American farce-that was staged in Toronto on July 17 and 18. But to get back to the president of Local 213, he wrote a very sharp com- ment on the convention which was published in the August edition of the 213 Livewire. The first paragraph read as follows: “The newly structured national building trades convention for Canada fell far short of what is needed in Canada to do a proper job of representing the mem- bership. This convention is the result of four years of pressure by Canadian locals of the building trades for our own national voice to speak for the more than 400,000 members of the building trades in Canada. The convention was at- tended by some 165 delegates. Out of the total number- of delegates attending, the only elected delegates were from Building Trades Councils. “Brother Georgine, president of the Building Trades Department of the American Federation of Labor (AFL-CIO), which makes him chief spokesman for 4.5 million construction workers in the U.S. and Canada, was appointed chairman of the convention by order of the general presidents of the international unions in the U.S. And 147 of the 161 delegates at- tending were hand-picked and appointed either by Georgine or the American general presidents. The new national executive board was also appointed by the American -general president with Ken Rose (international vice- president from the IBEW) ap- pointed pro tem chairman of the executive with all the convention committees being appointed by brother Georgine himself.”’ According to the information contained in some of the reports by British Columba delegates, eleven general presidents of international unions were in attendance. The initial formalitites included an address by the head of the Toronto Construction Association, an em- ployers association, but no speech by anyone from the Canadian Labor Congress, which is in-line with the contempt for Canada’s largest labor congress normally displayed by in- ternational officers and_ staff members of the Building Trades Department of the AFL-CIO. - To add insult to injury, chair- man Robert Georgine introduced the 15 members of the appointed Canadian exeuctive board early in the convention and told the delegates that the first meeting of * the new board had taken place in Washington D.C. on June 1, 45 days before the opening of the so-called Canadian convention which was supposed to speak for the building trades workders in Canada. Like _ most Canadians, I have been led to believe that the capital of Canada is Ottawa, Ontario, not Washington D&. Who are the 15 members of the Canadian executive board? They are ranking officers and staff members of the international unions in Canada who are directly responsible to their international presidents and executive boards in the U.S. Hence their selection as members of the so-called Canadian executive board, by their respective internation! presidents. @ Role of AFL-CIO leaders points up autonomy fight, One report that I read had this to say about the miserable farce played out in Toronto: ‘“‘There was a singular lack of fighting program or getting on with thé business as far as the executive board was concerned. All members of committees were appointed prior to the convention and each of these committees was headed up by two international representatives with a goodly number of international representatives named as mem- bers.” Nine building trades councils presented what they considered to LABOR COMMENT BY JACK PHILLIPS be a very important resolution to be dealt with by the convention but it was gutted and cut to pieces. The last two paragraphs called for total participation from local unions through to the international of- -ficers, and joint co-ordination by the provincial Building Trades Councils which, the resolution urged, should be fully represented in the new_ structure. The resolutions committee deleted the last two paragraphs, substituted “co-ordination” for ‘‘par- ticipation’? and added a new resolve: ‘‘That in order to achieve this strength and co-ordination that the Canadian Executive Board keep all Building Trades Councils informed as the action taken on these issues and that the said councils recognize their respon: sibilities toward the Canadian Executive Board in keeping them informed on a similar basis.” As one delegate told me when he returned: ‘‘This means no representation from the provincial councils which draw the trades together. The councils will be expected to feed information to the appointed executive which will then make the decisions, take action as they see fit and report back to the councils after they have acted. : Another delegate said that when this watered-down resolution hit the floor, there was strong op- position from Ontario, Quebec and British Columbia. An Ontario delegate declared that the proposition ‘‘was not worth the powder to blow it to hell’. A Quebec delegate said it was ob- vious ‘the whole gut issue had been fixed up before the convention started.” Georgine, after a vote to refer the resolution back to committee was declared lost, came into the picture again to tell the delegates they didn’t have the authority to change the structure and that they should ‘‘work within the system’’. He bluntly told representatives from the provincial councils ‘‘you can’t have input on your terms.” Then, the amended resolution was carried. A top officer of one of the bigger construction unions in B.C. gave me this comment: “The new Canadian structure is a long way from the democratic, autonomous organization which we fought for. At first, we were only a few who raised the issue, but in the past three years our position became the majority position in B.C., with substantial support across the country. I found this comment: “The session was touted as the first Canadian convention of the Building Trades Department of the AFL-CIO. This is somewhat strange as the jurisdiction of the AFL-CIO. and each of its con- _mind an article by Joseph Kraf stituent departments is limited " the United States. One recogniZ® that there must be a connection « but a Canadian convention of # AFL-CIO. department _ totall! ignoring our Canadian centre: According to that re resolutions for an autonom self-regulating Canadian co were rejected, as was another calling for a Canada- bargaining conference. Propo for expansion of the public and a shorter work week, design® to create more jobs for ©™ struction workers, were delel@ from a B.C. resolution on une! ~ ployment. With a third of Canada? construction workers unemploy® the resolution finally adopl™ called for standardization of hou? of work. Since the constructil! work week ranges from 37 1/2 0% hours across Canada, it is difficw! to figure out what the executive board intends to do’ this issue, if anything. ¥ - The author of this last repo . refered to the delegates beill “regaled by five or six fea speakers — all represen government or the employers.’ then made this comment: ‘‘It notable that there was not speaker from other uni Canadian Labor Congress, Ont Federation of Labor or lal oriented political figures.” # concluded with these remarks “The affair was disappointing, ? the just and necessary stru| continues, and must continue. Should understand that it ta great efforts to move mountall> especially the mountains building trades tradition al inertia. We have seen the ra increasing decline of buil trades activity in the Un States. This, we believe, is lar due to the failure to think out ideas...Either we, in this cou think and act in progressive W or we may face the common fa’ those who forget nothing and | nothing”’. That last quotation bring syndicated columnist based ‘Washington D.C., which appe in the Vancouver Sun Septemb Kraft informed his readers whereas a couple of years ago percent of the construction wor! the U.S. was done by union labor, now the fotal is only ha I would suggest that the ternational presidents sh address themselves to W problem in their own country wht the Canadian members work their own problems through autonomous Canadian council, rut by and for the Canadian met bership. The old slogan “Ct operation Yes! Domination No!’ q very appropriate in the cur situation. : f I do not believe that the me? bership of the construction unl in Canada are going to applaud farce played out in Toronto accept it as the last word on subject of Canadian autono especially since it fell far sho the minimum standa established by the Canadian La Congress. In the long run this h0®” can only serve to expose shabby talents of the main act0™ who followed a script written ¥ Washington D.C. by dodde bureaucrats totally out of tune W the situation in Canada and WY the needs of their membership # the U.S. This shabby performance will stimulate an even great struggle for complete Canadiat autonomy . and a frater# relationship between Canadian American construction worké! based on equality and mutual operation and respect.