[tasor

British miners stand up
to police violence on lines

LONDON — Entering their
106th day on strike Britain’s mili-
t coal miners are showing they
ate prepared to take the responsi-
Pale for saving their jobs, their
Idren’s future and the survival
of the coal industry itself.
At stake is the closure by the
ational Coal Board, the
Management of Britain’s state-
"in coal industry of 70 pits
th Oughout the country, and with
ese closures, some 70,000 min-
ts’ jobs. The NCB had said it
Was immediately closing 20 pits,
be Cutting 20,000 jobs in 1984,
ut NCB chairman Ian Mac-
Tegor unveiled his new ‘‘Plan
or Coal’? two weeks ago which

- ©Ssentially confirmed National

Mion of Mineworkers’ president
tthur Scargill’s allegations the
NCB planned to wipe out 70,000
Jobs at 70 pits.
he miners, backed by railway
Workers, and a flood of trade

 “Nion and labor support through-

out Britain have had to contend
with one the most vicious cam-
paigns, including police violence
ever unleashed by the NCB, with
the total backing of the right-wing
Tory government of Prime Minis-
ter Margaret Thatcher.

The NUM blames Thatcher’s
monetarist economic policies for
causing the crisis in the coal in-
dustry in the first place. Now, in
the government’s determination
to weaken the NUM and shift
away from coal to nuclear power
the NCB has pulled out all of the
stops to try to crush the miners.

The latest outburst of violence
against the strikers came June 18
with yet another incident of police
brutality at the embattled Or-
greave coke plant in northern
England. For the second time,
cops mounted on horseback
charged into a crowd of miners
trying to block a convoy of trucks
removing coking coal from the
plant.

More than 75 people, including
Scargill were injured and more
than 100 miners were arrested by
the police. ‘I was hit by a riot
shield — there’s no doubt about
that’’, Scargill told reporters from
his hospital bed. !

The NUM says that with
proper investment by the
government, Britain’s 1,000 year
coal supply can be transformed
into a valuable resource for the
people, creating jobs and a future
for generations to come. It prop-
oses an alternative program to the
layoffs and pit closures calling
for: liquifying coal into oil; using
the heat from coal fired power sta-
tions to heat schools, factories,
homes, hospitals, etc.; can-
cellation of the multi-billion dollar
coal debt; implementation of the
four-day work week; early
retirement at 55; longer holidays;
and more jobs for youth and in-

creased investment in the in-

dustry throughout Britain.

Police haul off British miner during demonstration in front of London’s
parliament buildings. The miners have been on strike for over three

months in an effort to save 70,000 jobs in the industry.

ee

Se es

RB eee

Time to stop union busting in Canada

Union busting on a major scale is now being carried
through in the Canadian construction industry, first of all
In-Alberta and British Columbia.

In Alberta construction bosses are ripping up existing
Contracts and inviting workers back to work at wages as
much as 50% below union contracts, and working condi-
tions dictated by the employers. The Alberta govern-

Ment and its labor:relations board»are endorsing these

actions.
In British Columbia the government is using its in-
uence and its legal powers to break the closed shop on
Construction sites. The closed shop has been a source of
Major strength of the unionized building trades for many
years. The government is openly advocating the pre-
Sence of non-union workers and non-union wages on all
-C. construction sites.
._ The same process is taking place to a lesser degree in
the construction industry across the country but in these
two provinces it finds its most open and brutal ex-
Pression. There can be no room for doubt that a major
Campaign is now under way to smash the Canadian
Unionized construction industry.
What lies behind these attacks?

If one listens to the construction companies and the -

80vernments, you would believe it is because con-
Struction workers have priced themselves out of the
Market. This is simply not true.

Labor costs as a percentage of construction costs have
Steadily gone down over the past two decades as new
techniques and increased labor productivity have been
introduced. Moreover most construction workers, with
the exception of the smaller percentage, work only a part
Year and their annual wages are not any higher, if as high
aS any well-paid skilled worker in Canada. It is this
Seasonal character of the industry which has historically
Seen hourly wages in the industry higher than those for
Most other workers.

What Fuels the Attack

A more accurate indicator of what fuels the attack on
the construction industry is to be found in statements
Made by Socred Premier Bill Bennett in B.C. and Tory
Minister of Labor Les Young of Alberta. Mr. Bennett

- Says it has to do with the democratic rights of non-union
Workers in B.C. to access to all jobs. This is simply a
Clear statement by the head of a government that the so
Called right to work, which does not extend to the un-
employed, is to be used to place the government
Squarely on the side of non-union labor.

Of course for the government it is not a question of
Union, or non-union but a question of low cost labor
Versus organized labor. The slogan of democracy is

ing used as a smokescreen to support the wage-
Cutting, union-busting drive of the contractors.

Mr. Young chalks it up to ‘‘part of the changing eco-
Nomic circunstances’’ — ‘‘the employers’ position is

_ | Only as you now see it under very unusual economic

Labor in action
q William Stewart

circumstances” he says. Translated this ainounts to
government support for union busting on the grounds
that the economic situation permits it. This, as is the case
also in B.C., comes from governments who were quick
to introduce wage controls when the market place fa-
vored workers getting their fair share of the pie.

As to the arguments by the contractors that it is essen-
tial for them to introduce lower labor costs in order to
compete with non-union firms bidding on contracts, con-
struction unions oint out that in most instances the “‘so
called’’ non-union firms are what the union has dubbed
‘‘double-breasted’’ companies.

This is a euphemism for dummy companies set up by
union contractors, to bid against themselves on con-
tracts and set the stage for the very attacks which are
now being carried through. Legislation has been intro-
duced in most Canadian provinces recently to legitimize
this procedure.

- Cruel Use of the Crisis

- Taken together it is clear that what you have is not any
real economic reason for lowering wages in the con-
struction industry, but rather the cruel use of an eco-
nomic crisis in the construction industry, largely oc-
casioned by government fiscal policies, to smash the
construction unions, cheapen labor costs for con-
struction industries, and perhaps even more significantly
to lower the cost of construction for capital, so that its
investment for recapitalization to meet the new demands
of the technological revolution, will be as cheap as pos-
sible.

This same process is taking place in other industries
but it is more blatent in the construction industry and
includes union smashing toan extent not yet seen else-
where. Why the difference?

Perhaps this is best explained by the reprehensible
failure of the construction unions to organize the un-

organized sector of the industry during the entire post ~
-war period. They tended to use the closed shop as a wall

to protect themselves from any threat by the non-union
sector and refused to face the task of organizing the
unorganized, in spite of the steady demand of the left
within the union for such actions.

This practice worked as long as the industry was re-
latively buoyant. Now however when unemployment is
as high as eighty-percent in some sectors of the industry
and at least fifty-percent across the board, the contrac-
tors no-longer feel the need to respect the unions’ posi-

tion. Particularly when governments are providing the
lead to bust contracts and big-business as a whole is
exerting pressure on them to make an ‘“‘example”’ out of
the construction unions.

Secondly the attack on the industry can be also
explained by the fact that it has taken itself outside the
house of labor and set up another labor centre the Cana-

dian Federation of Labor. This makes it more difficult to.

mobilize the trade union movement both in defense of the
unions under attack, but also in the campaign for
government action to revitalize the building industry
which would be the best defence of the workers against
employer attack.

Double-Barreled Conspiracy

There is a strong suspicion amongst progressive build-
ing trades workers that the decision of their U.S. based
leadership to take them out of the Canadian Labor Con-
gress, and the attack on them by the employers are two

parts of a conspiracy by the building trades’ union

leadership and the construction companies to bring

‘ down construction workers’ wages and cut back on their

conditions.

The parent unions in the U.S. have lost most of the
industry to the non-union sector; they now have some-
where around 17 percent of the construction workers
organized. Their answer to this crisis is not to go out and
organize the non-union workers, but as they have most
always done, try to organize the employers. In today’s
conditions this means providing circumstances suitable
to the construction firms — lower wages and stripped-
down conditions.

Whether or not these suspicions are completely true
there is little doubt that with the exception of British
Columbia there is no really militant co-ordinated mass:
economic or political fightback by the construction
unions to the savage attack on their very unions. Even in
Alberta there is disunity, division and hesitation in the
top leadership of the building trade unions as to how and
whether or not to fight back outside futile sorties into the
courts.

The struggle however is far too crucial to be left either
in the hands of the building trades’ leadership or for the
entire onus to be placed on the shoulders of rank and file
construction workers to develop a fight back even where
their leaders resist.

As was noted at the recent Canadian Labor Congress
Convention, the argument of union autonomy can no
longer be used as an excuse for unions failing to act in
support of their membership, or for the CLC to fail to
mobilize and intervene when the interests of the entire
movement are threatened and one or another section
fails itself to address its problems with sufficient vigor.

The time is now to stop union busting in Canada. The
place is Alberta and British Columbia. The responsibility
rests with the CLC. We can surely expect it to respond
with the kind of action needed.

PACIFIC TRIBUNE, JUNE 27, 1984 «

7.

OO