E. > * THE WESTERN CANADIAN LUMBER WORKER THIRTY CENTS PLUS OVER THREE YEARS eee seereeessesniereescreanem terres ne, cree ——— REGION 3 SIGNS NEW AGREEMENT A new three-year contract has been negotiated by Wes- tern States Regional Council No. 3, with the four big com- panies and two employer as- sociations which will provide a general wage increase of 30 cents in the first year and 6% per hour general wage in- creases for both the second and third years. Important gains were also made in the fringe benefits negotiated. WELFARE MYTHS QUASHED IN ARTICLE A lot of myths about and prejudices against welfare recipients have developed over the years cr have carried over from past generations. Too seldom are these often- damaging views adequately countered by informed ob- servers. In the current issue of Canadian WELFARE, publi- cation of the Canadian Wel- fare Council, a well-docu- mented article by Stephen Peitchinis, economist now at University of Calgary, firmly quashes the common notion that welfare recipients are a legion of freeloaders. Professor Peitchinis has re- cently concluded a study of the nature of welfare assist- ance in Alberta. Calgary Recipients Professor Peitchinis’ statis- tics are drawn from a sample of public assistance recipients registered with the North Cal- gary Branch of the provincial public welfare department. Here are the types of people who draw assistance, and who depend on it for their exist- ence: 4 © those unable to work be- cause of illness or old age — 45.7 per cent. . © one-parent families with dependent children not of working age — 38.6 per cent. e those who can and do work but earn too little — 10.3 per cent. e those who can work but don’t, for some reasons that are justifiable, some not — 5.4 per cent. The Exceptions Among the latter category of only 5.4 per cent, Professor Peitchinis says he did indeed find some who lacked initi- ative, some men who deserted. their families because the family could thus claim more money through social assist- ance than he could earn to support them. “But the evi- dence also demonstrates,” he writes, “that in relation to the total, such cases are the ex- ception rather than the rule. Hence, to emphasize their ex- istence repeatedly, as is often done by opponents of social welfare measures, is to convey the erroneous impression that such uncommon practices are in fact common.” Professor Peitchinis’ obser- vation about the large num- bers of people receiving social assistance (93,083) in such an affluent province is that there should be more, not fewer. He says that there are hundreds of low-income individuals and families who undoubtedly qualify for supplementary so- cial allowances but do not apply for them. Means Test Reasons are that there has been little effort by agencies to inform people about their eligibility and to encourage them to apply; there are people who hesitate to apply because they dislike the means tests and don’t know how far they would be compelled to go to account for their ex- penditures; and there are people who regard any form of public assistance degrading. In Professor Peitchinis’ opinion, this “no thank you we'll manage by ourselves” attitude reflects society’s atti- tudes in general toward those who rely on public assistance, no matter how legitimate their reasons for having to do so. Professor Peitchinis raises difficult. questions about the able-bodied recipients who are able to work. Who should be required to work and who should be given assistance? Should mothers with depend- ent children get a job outside the home, for example? Or should they be encouraged to devote themselves to raising their children, who will in turn add to the nation’s man- power? The answer, he says, is that some mothers would do their children a better serv- ice by staying in the home, some by leaving them under skilled supervision while they work. The Question “The question is, therefore, how long can the nation afford to allow this important func- tion to be performed under widely varying physical and environmental conditions, by individuals with widely vary- ing qualifications?” Able-bodied unemployed men in the survey sample mostly had a history of short- term unemployment, he found. They had relatively low- levels of education and no specific skills that are in de- mand; most of them had un- desirable personality charac- teristics such as minor physi- cal ailments and psychological problems. “Because the competitive position of such individuals is relatively weak, the likelihood of their success in the regular labor market is almost non- existent.” He suggests that some sort of “subsidized semi-private market” for such people is worthy of consideration. “From the standpoint of both individual and social welfare, subsidized employment may be a superior alternative to subsidized unemployment.” The previous base rate in the four companies — Geor- gia-Pacific, U.S. Plywood Champion Paper, and Simp- son Timber — varied from a low of $2.74 an hour to a high of $2.81 an hour. The recommended settle- ment now going out to refer- endum vote of the members will set the pattern for other companies negotiating with Region 3. The following are the con- tract terms and basic formula: June 1, 1969—30c per hour general wage increase. June 1, 1970—6% per hour general wage increase. Piece workers to receive 22c per hour general wage in- crease. June 1, 1971—6% per hour general wage increase. Piece workers to receive 23c per hour general wage in- crease. June 1, 1969—The fol- lowing table sets forth the classification adjustments, all of which shall be placed into effect prior to and in addition to the General wage increase. Basic Formula Rates of 3.145 and less (and all Pieceworkers) 3.15— 3.29508 plus 5c 3.30—3.395 plus 10c 3.40—3.495 plus 15c 3.50—3.595 plus 20c 3.60—3.795 plus 25c 3.80—3.895 plus.30c 3.90—and over ____._. plus 40c In applying the above, it is recognized that proper consi- deration has been given to gross inter, and intra plant inequities. With these exceptions: 1. Day work Production Crew Fallers and Buckers to get the formula but will receive not less than the rate of $4.75. 2. Hooktenders and Climb- er to get the formula but will receive not less than the rate $4.75. (Does not include Cat Hooktenders) . 3. General or top level of Millwright, Maintenance Man or Mechanic—if formula does not yield a rate of at least _ $3.90, to be adjusted to $3.90. 4. Lead, Head, or Shift Maintenance and Electrician, or Machinist or highly skilled maintenance classifications — to get such increase as is req- uisite to maintain existing dif- ferentials over the General or top level Maintenance men with whom they are asso- ciated. 5. Truck Drivers, i.e., Log Truck, Chip Haul or highway transport, etc., to get not less than 25c, i.e.,—if formula does not yield 25c, then to get 25c. 6. Gravel and Dump Truck Drivers. Same concept — if formula does not yield 20c, to get not less than 20c. Note — Specifically exclud- ed in 5. and 6. are Plant Clean-up Trucks, scrap haul, and similar “Bull Cook” truck jobs. 7. Lift Truck, Jitney Oper- ators and Carrier Drivers. Same concept — if formula does not yield 5c — to get not less than 5c. 8. All boom classifications now being paid in excess of $3.17 per hour to receive not less than 2.40 per day (30c per hour on eight hour basis)’. 9. All of the above to be ef- fective June 1, 1969, and ap- plied prior to application of the 30c per hour general wage increase. Shift Differentials June 1, 1970—(a) Swing or second shift—2c per hour in- crease. (b) Graveyard or third shift—2c per hour in- crease. : June 1, 1971—(a) Swing or second shift increase in an amount necessary to provide a uniform rate of twelve (12c) per hour. (b) Grave- yard or third shift increase to a uniform rate of eighteen cents (18c) per hour. June 1, 1969—Increase the hoot owl shift to a uniform rate of ten cents (10c) per hour. June 1, 1970—Increase the FRANKLIN RIVER CREW WINS MEAL DISPUTE The attempt by MacMillan- Bloedel to force its Franklin River loggers to go over twelve hours without a meal was defeated by job action of the crew. : The loggers, members of Local 1-85, have been work- ing on early shift due to the high fire hazard in the woods. Breakfast for early shift workers is served between three and four in the morn- ing. The last meal of the day is provided after the end of the shift at 3:00 p.m. ; The men protested that be- cause of the intense heat of the bunkhouses in the after- noon it was impossible to sleep and by the time they had cooled off at nine or ten o’clock at night, they were hungry. The men also pointed out that a fourth meal for loggers on early shift is traditional in all logging camps includ- ing MacMillan Bloedel’s. When the Company re- fused to grant their request all the employees at Frank- lin River numbering approx- imately 400, stayed off the job. The next day the Com- pany capitulated and granted the crew the fourth meal. BUSY BEE The bee is such a busy soul She has no time for birth control That is why in times like these We meet so many “sons of bees.” hoot owl shift two cents (2c) per hour to twelve cents (12c) per hour. June 1, 1971—Increase the hoot owl shift to a uniform rate of eighteen cents (18c) per hour. June 1, 1969—Amend all woods agreements to provide: Hoot Owl Shift Differential. Woods employees starting a shift between 12:00 o'clock midnight and 6:00 a.m., (lo- cally observed time), desig- nated by the Employer during fire season as a “hoot owl shift.” Health and Welfare November 1, 1969 — In- crease employer contributions by ten cents (10c) per com- pensable hour to health and welfare trusts. September 1, 1970 — In- crease employer contributions by five cents (5c) per com- pensable hour to health and . welfare trusts. © Jury Duty Pay June 1, 1969 — Employees losing work as a result of serving on Jury Duty shall receive from the employer the difference in the amount of pay received as a juror and the amount of straight time pay, including shift differen- tial he would have received had he continued to work but .limited to 8 hours per day or 40 hours per week. Woods Travel Pay June 1, 1969 — Present Woods Travel Time Pay be increased to twenty-five cents (25c) per hour. June 1, 1970—Woods Trav- el Time pay be increased to thirty-five cents (35c) per hour. Paid Holidays 1970 — December 24 be added to all contracts as a paid holiday. 1969 — Effective. with date of ratification of the negotiat- ed settlements, all non-paid holidays be deleted from all contracts where same exists. June 1, 1969 — Revise paid holiday qualification provi- sions to provide holiday pay when an otherwise qualified employee — 1. Fails to work his first day after the holiday when he has been on layoff and does return within the time limit provided in the working agreements for return from layoff. 2. Fails to work his first day after a holiday due to a permanent plant closure which occurred within 30 days prior to the holiday. 3. Fails to work his last day prior or his first day after the holiday because he is on an authorized leave of ab- sence including temporary Armed Forces or National Guard service not exceeding 30 days. June 1, 1970 — 1. Amend working agreements which do not now so provide to provide that New Year’s holiday shall begin at 5:00 o’clock pm December 31 and end Jan- uary 1 midnight. All present vacation. provi- sions shall be amended where necessary, to provide for an hour’s worked formula to establish eligibility foy vaca- tion and vacation pay.