e Continued from Page 5

one honorable exception. The Canadian
Brotherhood of Railway, Transport and
General Workers, held out for a few
days, long enough to conduct a vote
among their members.

However, with such a split between
the leadership and union ranks, any
chance of conducting a united strug-
gle in defiance of the parliamentary
edict and of strike-breaking as official
government policy was undermined. In
these circumstances the vote among
the members of the CBRT&GW, the
largest and most militant of the non-
op unions, could not be anything else
but a majority for return to work.

Had it not been for the capitulation
at the last minute of the top leader-
ship, it is safe to say that few work-
ers would have returned to work. The
workers rightly blamed nine months
of fruitless negotiations, abortive con-
ciliation and mediation, and finally a
strike, squarely* on government com-
mitments to support the railway com-
panies and other monopolies, and the
profiteering and inflation directly
emanating therefrom.

THOUSANDS REFUSE
TO COMPLY

As it was, and with all the heavy
odds against them, thousands of work-
ers in Thunder Bay, Winnipeg, Cal-
gary and Vancouver and as_ well
as Fort Erie and Windsor, defied
the strike-breaking edict and stayed
on strike for nearly two weeks. When
the last holdouts in B.C. voted to re-
turn to work under pressure of charg-
es made under Section 115 of the Cri-
minal Code, carrying a penalty of two
years imprisonment and heavy fines,
they did so on two conditions. They
will work to rule and all charges
against strikers must be dropped. By
this time charges had already been
laid, or were being contemplated
against hundreds of strikers in B.C.
and some in Thunder Bay, Ontario.
But the government got the message
and decided to drop all charges.

COMPANY-GOVERNMENT

COLLUSION ADMITTED

One point is worth remembering, as
clear evidence of government-railway

ere

Sexi xi

#Ail

es

pow

4

4

RAILWAY PRESIDENT
$75 000
Pe RAILWAY WORKER

37500 MINUS~ -

companies collusion. A justice depart-
ment spokesman admitted that the
names of strikers against whom charg-
es were laid or contemplated were not
being selected by his department but
were drafted according to a list he re-
ceived from the railway companies.

CORPORATE LIES—COVER-UP
FOR PROFITEERING

It is political hogwash and an insult
to public intelligence to suggest — as
one high CPR official did — that the
picayune and demeaning 17.6% increase
in pay over two years granted to rail-
way workers in the strike-breaking bill
will “lend a serious inflationary push
to the economy” of the country. In-
ability to pay was not a valid reason
or excuse for the railway companies
provocation of a strike, thus depriving
the country of a vital public service.

At the time of negotiations in 1973
the growth of the railway industry
proved to be much larger than the
average growth of the Canadian econ-
omy as a whole. The tremendous in-
crease in productivity on the railways
is illustrated by the fact that in 15
years ending in 1971, the number of
non-operating railway employees de-
creased by 37%, while employment in
durable goods industries increased by
17%.

ECONOMIC SQUEEZE
ON THE WORKER

The average hourly earnings of non-
operating railway workers as of De-
cember last year was. 41 cents less
per hour than the average hourly earn-
ings by workers in the durable goods
industries. Traditionally the average
earnings in the durable goods indus-
tries have been used to compare rates
and earnings of non-operating railway
workers. This shows how far railway
workers’ earnings have fallen behind
during the past decade.

The non-operating unions’ nominee
on the conciliation board showed that
if railway workers’ wages were adjust-
ed only to account for the actual in-
flation this year (assuming that the
inflation for the last six months of the
year equals that of the first six
months) the railway workers would
have to get an increase of 34 cents

WAY PRESIDENT
PLUS
WORKE

5.000

Pius Mise.

“The average hourly earnings of non-operating railway workers as of December
last year was 41 cents less per hour than the average hourly earnings by workers

in the.durable goods industries.”

PACIFIC TRIBUNE — FRIDAY, OCTOBER 5, 1973 — PAGE 6 ©

out limit.

railway industry.

eae the 1973 strike.

(The struggle for better
pensions in 1971-72

In February, 1971, the then Finance Minister, Edgar Benson, recom-
mended changes in federal pension regulations under the Pension Benefits
Standards Act so as to allow the CPR 60 years, instead of 25 years, to fund
employees’ pensions. The CNR, a crown corporation, already had this privi-
lege. Over half-a-century without a fully funded pension plan. Incredible,
you say. So how come that the union leaders agreed?

Because union representatives apparently assumed that if there was
going to be a saving for the CPR due to 60-year funding, those savings
would be passed on to the workers because the CPR promised improved
pensions for 43,000 employees, 10,000 pensioners and 5,000 pensioners’
widows. Since the pension plan was controlled by the company and not
negotiable, support for 60-year funding was considered important in the
bid for better pensions. Most union members were sceptical and saw the
‘move as yet another swindle by both the company and the government.

The announcement of pension impr
turn out to be a disappointment. The one and one-quarter percent pension
benefit per year of service was raised to one and one-half percent. The
railway workers sought TWO percent. Besides, the CPR’s formula was retro-
active only to January 1, 1956, while the CNR’s formula is retroactive with-

ovements by the CPR, later on, did

The subsequent struggle over better pensions during 1971 and 1972 has
to be seen in the light of the rapid decimation of the work force in the

A powerful pension association movement was organized and grew to
over 40,000 activists and supporters across the country. At one point the
Ontario Northland Railway was closed down in a few days’ strike over the
issue. At the same time Railway Workers’ Councils grew.up from coast to
coast, acting as liaison bodies between various railway workers’ unions
at the local level. This laid the basis for rank-and-file unity in the course sf

per hour to equal the same buying
power they had when their contracts
expired last December.

UNIONS COMPROMISED
THEIR OWN CASE

In spite of this the unions’ nominee,
Professor J. C. Weldon, recomended
only a 5.45% increase to offset inflation,
which for the year ending June 30 was
more than 8%. He also proposed a
3.34% increase as railway workers’
share of the growth in the national
economy, and only an increase of 2%

. as catch-up payment to compensate for

part of the gap between railway work-
ers and workers in the durable goods
industries. Obviously a much too con-
servative proposal, adding up to only
38 cents an hour increase for this year,
retroactive to January 1, 1973, plus an
equal amount in 1974, or 10.8% for
each year of a two year contract.

The blame for the conservative union
position on the conciliation board be-
longs to the top union joint negotiat-
ing team, which had come down far
too much from an original 15% de-
mand for each year to the point of
having no room to negotiate, while the
railway companies refused to budge.

The strike-breaking bill adopted by
parliament granted a basic 9.6% in-
crease this year and 8% next year, for
a total of 17.6% increase in wages for
the non-ops over a two-year period
ending December 31, 1974. This is
almost identical to the 17% legislated
increase back in 1966.

This does not meet the rise in living .

costs of 8.6% by June 30, let -alone
giving railway workers a share of

- increased income, plus needed catch-

up payment to bring them up to the
pay of workers in other similar occu-
pations.

In addition to the 56,000 Associated
Non-operating Unions, the legislation
barring further strike action this time
around, applies also to 36,000 Feder-
ated Shopcraft Unions and 14,000 train
crews belonging to the United Trans-
portation ‘Union (UTU).

TAKE HOME PAY BELOW
$100 PER WEEK

In terms of dollars and cents, the
non-ops will now get an increase from
$3.54 average per hour to $4.19 per
hour at the end of next year. This is
4¢ per hour more than the $4.15 re-
comended by the Liberal government,
as a result of a Stanfield amendment,
which ‘both the Liberals and Tories
voted for. The NDP’s proposal would
have added 15 cents more to make it
$4.34 per hour, average, by the end
of next year.

In terms of weekly pay, the non-ops

will get an increase from the present
$141.60 to $155.20 retroactive to Jam
uary 1 of this year. By January 1, next
year, it will go up to $165.20, and by
July 1, next, it will reach $167.20
average pay per week. These are the
money wages.

These rates of pay. are subject t0
deductions for taxes and all and sun
dry other deductions, so that
home pay now between $80 and
per week, will probably still be some-
where at or below $100 average Pe
week.

(A Thornhill woman, wife of s
junior clerk with a take home pay 9 |
$86 per week, told the Toronto Stal
(Sept. 4) she would support hef’ hus:
band if he voted to continue the strike:
This woman works as a registratio?
consultant at the University of Torom™
to and earns $5,500 per year. She #s
reported saying: “It is ridiculous that
I’m making more than he is,” spea
ing of her railway worker husband.) |

Such sub-standard wages for wo
ers in this vital and essential industtY
is not only unfair exploitation of eat:
workers directly concerned, but is ¢€
rimental to the country’s economy 2
to the public interest.

A POLICY OF—"THE PUBLIC
INTEREST BE DAMNED!

Liberal Labor Minister John Munk
says he favors compulsory arbitral
when the “public interest” is invol¥ oo
In reality he protects private profitee”
and monopoly interests, who are '
saboteurs of the public interest. 4

Besides driving down living se 4
ards in the postwar years, the rail? ie
companies have thrown tens of i
sands of workers out of their J° i
abandoned thousands of miles of ¥ |
way tracks and left communities ia a)
die from lack of services—all in thé
terest of monopoly profits.

BOTH WORKERS AND .
COMMUNITY ABANDONE

ith which
The reckless abandon with aekers

this has been done has made W that
and the public the victims. rather 4.
beneficiaries of modernization ane ot,
tionalization in the railway ind ced
The federal government has facili (0: ae
this by legislative and financial a og
the companies. The closing d0 anc!
what are called “uneconomical’ bre eae
lines, as well as curtailment © Pr
senger and package freight servic’ 950) 4
main lines, has accelerated since ee
when the first postwar railway * ing
was suppressed by strike-bre#

legislation. : pans? ;
- The issue of technological se of
and rationalization has become tint
and only concern from the vie

Nene ti a on aaa aii llamar Lt