By DAVID WALLIS EDMONTON — About 500 delegates participated in one of the _ Alberta Union of Public Employees’ most militant conventions, Nov. 3-6. The convention’s fighting mood was reflected in the decision to donate a million dollars to the B.C. Government Employees Union fight against the Bennett government and $660,000 for the Alberta Federation of Labor’s ‘‘War on (bill) 44’ campaign. The delegates gave Alberta premier Peter Lougheed a clear message that public sector workers are ready to fight existing anti-union legis- lation and whatever future public sector cuts the government has AUPE president John Booth told the convention of the Tory pro- vincial government’s plans to axe some 2,000 jobs from the public - sector and he revealed provincial treasurer Lou Hyndman’s con- fidential memo, Oct. 26, directing all government departments to cut full time staff positions by at least two per cent. Public sector workers and the labor movement in general feel that the 2,000 job cuts are only the beginning, with many more to come if the government gets away with its plans unopposed. Booth’s announcement was based on a pledge Lougheed recently made in New York to big business barons to slash the public sector in Alberta. The government has already announced 220 layoffs to pro- -_vincial health care workers. The convention came in the wake of the government’s introduction of Bill 41, which has denied AUPE the right to strike since 1971, and the notorious Bill 44, passed earlier this year imposing public sector wage controls, adding 28,000 hospital workers to the list of workers stripped of the right to strike and a host of extremely repressive provisions attacking fundamental trade union nights. Standing ovations given to BCGEU vice-president Dianne Wood and National Union of Provincial Government Employees president John Fryer, again refiected the militancy of both the union and the convention. The delegates’ enthusiastic response to these speakers’ reports of the B.C. struggle showed, that given progressive leadership, __ Alberta public sector workers are no less willing to fight for their rights than workers elsewhere across Canada. _ The convention rejected efforts to sow divisions between AUPE and _ AFL and the Canadian Labor Congress, and they showed no interest in proposals to bypass mobilizing the membership in favor of limiting the fight against the government to the courts. President Booth’s statement to the convention that challenging Bill 44 in the courts ‘“*may well be the most economic route to follow to have the bill’s provisions declared null and void’’, made no impact on the direction the delegates wanted to take. Booth narrowly scraped _ through re-election with three votes more than 50 per cent of the convention he needed to win. Militant Action Urged By backing the *‘War on 44”’ with money and action, the delegates showed they were more in tune with those in the union, such as presidential candidate Lorraine Snyder, who argued AUPE play a greater role in the AFL, than with others trying to set the union on a -go-it-alone course. Snyder charged that since the AFL’s February convention, AUPE has dropped its activity somewhat in the Fed, but she noted that as the AFL’s largest affiliate, AUPE must ‘‘give it our total support, if we are going to have solidarity with other unions.” Newly-elected vice-president Steve Timchuk echoed the same sentiment when he called on the union to play a more active role in the “War on 44"" campaign. Warmly received by the convention, AFL president Dave Werlin recognized differences that exist between the union leadership and the _ federation and he issued a call for a joint AFL-AUPE executive meet- _ ing to try and work them out. __In their support for fight against Bill 44 and in the militant policies _ adopted by the convention, the delegates showed that Alberta workers want a more militant trade union leadership — one that is prepared to _ lead them in the streets, if necessary, to secure and advance labor’s rights and living standards. _ As they returned to their locals, many delegates were conscious of _ the challenge the newly-elected officers and re-elected incumbents face _ during their forthcoming two-years of service to the union.. They'll _ have to contend with a huge debt load which the union administration has piled up over the past few years of business unionism, while their _ members are under attack as never before by the Tory government. _ The membership is now fiexing new, more militant muscles as a result of the Lougheed government’s attack on the labor movement and they fear the worst as a result of the all-out assault on labor by B.C.’s Socred government in that province. Many delegates expressed the view that trying to fight Lougheed’s _ planned slashing of public service workers’ jobs by two per cent in every department with action in the courts, the International Labor _ Organization or the United Nations, just won't be good enough. By their actions at this convention they telegraphed a distinct mes- sage to the new AUPE leadership that they want the union more closely united with the rest of the labor movement in Alberta, in more meaningful, more militant, and more immediate fight to preserve the jobs and rights of Alberta’s public employees. PACIFIC TRIBUNE—NOVEMBER 23, 1983—Page 6 Toronto labor tells Ottawa to protest Grenada invasion TORONTO — Outraged by the U.S. invasion of Grenada, Metro labor council delegates unan- imously endorsed an executive board statement calling on Prime Minister Trudeau on behalf of the government to condemn the American govern- ment’s actions and demand immediate with- drawal of all foreign troops from that ravaged island. The statement, passed at the council’s monthly membership meeting Nov. 3, also called for the replacement of all U.S. and foreign troops with a ‘“‘Commonwealth peace force which would re- main in place only long enough for the Grenadian people to have an opportunity to democratically choose their own system of government and elect their leaders ...” While support for the statement was unani- mous, a number of delegates, including United Auto Workers delegate Bill Devine questioned the wisdom of the demand for a Commonwealth peace-keeping force because of the fact that the Garibbean forces supporting the invasion are members of the Commonwealth. The council executive in its statement called U.S. Marines invading Grenada. - _ another through military intervention,” the invasion ‘‘a classic example of a premeditated — violation of the sovereignty of one country by | and said — that“it ‘clearly demonstrates the oppressive na- | ture of American foreign policy and once again ~ focusses on the ugliness of American gunboat diplomacy.” The invasion shows the Reagan government _ has no respect for governments in the Caribbean }| or Central America and that in the final analysis 7 ‘“‘the American government will take whatever | steps they think are in their best interest, includ- | ing overthrowing any government and setting up | their own puppet version of ‘democratic govern- | ment’,’’ like Haiti’s Duvalier, and Samoza’s | Nicaragua. 4 The statement rejected all of the reasons for the | invasion stated by Washington. Included was — what the executive called the ‘‘flimsy excuse’ that the U.S. was reacting to a request from the | organization of Eastern Caribbean nations, and | called the invasion nothing more or less ‘‘than an | act of war clearly intended to overthrow the government the U.S. felt was unfriendly or un- sympathetic to their aims and policies.” Canadians should be alarmed at the flimsiness of the U.S. attempts to justify this naked aggres- | sion, the council warned. ‘‘What is really terrify- ing is that if we take the American foreign policy of gunboat democracy and add to that their nuc- — lear capabilities, one gets a chilling, frightening — picture of Americans using nuclear weapons first, then asking questions. later’, the executive — pointed out. The statement also criticized those responsibiaaa ; for the events leading to the invasion, the brutal - coup and murder of Prime Minister Maurice Bishop along with key cabinet ministers and tradems 4 union leaders. Condemning those responsible, | the council said the action “‘was a senseless {| criminal act of murder which in the final analysis may have been the critical factor in encouraging | the American government to invade Grenada.” Building trades fight back By TERRY FRASER TORONTO — Flowing from the ‘‘noconcessions’”’ stand taken by the recent Ontario building trades council convention, construction union members met at the Ironworkers Hall, Nov. 13 to launch a 27-member voluntary committee for a province-wide fightback against concessions. The meeting was chaired by provincial council president Barry Fraser and its purpose was to explore the ways and means of implementing the decisions of the recent Sarnia convention, includ- ing the fightback against conces- sions and to seek improvements in the 1984 building trades negoti- ations. The voluntary committee struck by the Nov. 13 meeting will include president Fraser and the council’s secretary treasurer Joe Duffy as members. The meeting took place on the background of serious problems confronting building trades work- ers. Heading the list is the drive by the contractors to wring conces- sions from the workers by using the threat of massive unemploy- ment in the construction industry and the current economic crisis as a club to force down wages and benefits. This crisis has tended to lead to cannibalism, and jurisdictional ing trades workers in fighting the concessions drive. The problems of building trades workers are further complicated by certain union leaders who are caving in to rollbacks and conces- sions as their response to the crisis in the construction industry. Recently early and secret con- tract talks involving top leaders of the carpenters, laborers, iron- workers, masons and brick layers and operating engineers calling themselves CLIMBE, have taken place with the contractors, and they are reportedly going to ask their members to consider an agreement with no wage increase in 1984, a one dollar an hour hike in 1985 and no benefits increases. These so-called ‘‘minor concessions” have little attrac- tion for building trades workers who’ ve followed the tragic results of U.S. construction workers who followed their leadership down the concessions’ road sup- posedly to save jobs and the industry only to find themselves and their unions representing a diminishing minority of construc- tion workers. Referring to such advocates of concessions one angry building trades worker pointed out, ‘‘what they don’t realize is that these minor concessions are just the first step. It’s like trying to satisfy wrangling among the trades — a hippopotamus with a handful ot thus weakening the unity of build- grasshoppers.” duct,”” he said. Speaker after speaker at the 4 Nov. 13 meeting rejected the — -concessions approach and many — pointed to the U.S. situation | where concessions ended in se- verely crippling union a 4 tion in construction. They called for the develops ment of a massive fightback — movement that would answer the | demand for concessions with the | demand for higher wages and the shorter work week with no - loss in pay to meet the unem ployed crisis in the industry, an for a concerted drive to organize — the unorganized to fight the threat of double-breasted companies: the growing non-union sectol: — and raise everyone’s standards and conditions. Their mood was reflected by — one young worker after the ee i ing. ‘‘The fact that so few bust ness managers and leader were here would seem to mean {4 many of them prefer secret meet- ings with the contractors, door deals consummated, ne a selling job on their members, aftet everything is signed, sealed and delivered. tion to the contractors is the to go, but I sense that the guys i? here were very specific that they aren’t buying that shoddy pro"