Ll LL {LY AOL AL |

TT TT

ONTARIO'S LABOR
-BILL-
A BOOBY TRAP
FOR ALL UNIONS!

The real purpose of Bill 167 — “An
Act to Amend the Ontario Labor Re-
lations Act” — is to drive down wages
and weaken unions. This aim is to be
realized by substituting compulsory ar-
bitration and coercion in place of col-
lective bargaining based on the work-
ers’ right to strike.

Ontario’s Bill 167 is part of a.coun-
try-wide pattern along similar lines.
There is Bill 33 in British Columbia,
which labor has successfully resisted.
There is Bill 2 in Sakatchewan which
forced construction labor back to
work. There ‘is Bill 290 passed last
year in Quebec along corporatist lines,
integrating all construction industry
bargaining under state control. There
is Premier Bourassa’s Bill 38, pushed
through Quebec’s National Assembly
this year to force some 40,000 con-
struction workers back to work.

At the federal level, Prime Minister
Trudeau threatens to get tough and
force compulsory arbitration on Can-
ada’s postmen. Federal guidelines on
wages are to be supplemented by legis-
lative coercion. The anti-labor drive
has long been on the drawing boards,
as indicated by such federal reports
as the Woods Task Force Report and
the Goldenberg-Crispo Report on the
construction industry.

Of course, no government likes to
admit to havjng anti-popular aims,
least of all Ontario, where a provin-

[ne Me nt VV

cial election is not far off and the
Tories will be seeking labor and public
support. Ontario Labor Minister Dalton
Bales, therefore, pretends to be a friend
of labor when he puts forward his pre-
amble to the effect that: “It is in the
public interest of the Province of On-
tario to further harmonious relations
between employers and employees by
encouraging the practise and proced-
ure of collective bargaining .. .”

The wording is much similar to that

‘ used by President Nixon of the United

FL

AULT

States when he created his Construc-
tion Industry Collective Bargaining
Commission on which now sit ten con-
struction union leaders. Mr. Nixon also
spoke about improving “the proced-
ures and performance of collective
bargaining.”

In sum and substance, however, On-
tario’s Bill 167, like its U.S. counter-
part is all in favor of the employers.
The proposed amendments continue the
exclusion of workers, while bringing
the bosses and their organizations
under the Labor Relations Act. The
argument used to explain this is that
unions in the construction field are
“too strong.” The amendments are
therefore: necessary ‘“‘to help correct
an economic imbalance of power.”

In other words, the real purpose of
the amendments is to: HELP STRENG-
THEN THE HANDS OF THE EMPLOY-
ERS IN COLLECTIVE BARGAINING.

RS

‘STE.

\

seven

LOCAL 2251
) VA at he peat @

Why the Building Trades
as the First Target?

First, obviously because fantastic
amounts of money are being spent
in commercial and industrial construc-
tion, road building, rapid transit and,
to a lesser extent in residential con-
struction. The profits made are phen-
omenal. At the same time the acci-
dent rate is enormous, along with
physical speed-up. Work is sporadic
and scattered. Travel to and from the
places of work is costly. A large num-
ber of workers in some of the heaviest
construction work, outside commercial
and industrial construction, are un-
organized. The pressure for organiza-
tion, more pay and better condition
has become irresistible? Only the
largest and wealthiest contractors can
resist unionization and the workers’
demands for better pay and working
conditions.

Second, and flowing from the fore-
going, there is a drive to rationalize
the construction industry in line with
other industries. This means that the
largest and wealthiest contractors seek
to eliminate the smaller ones.

Third, and along the lines of policy,

applied by the monopolies in the large
primary and manufacturing industries,
the intention is to make the workers
pay the cost of this rationalization.
The US Construction Industry Collec-

tive Bargaining Commission came out
with a niné-point program last Janualy:
which actually seeks a roll-back 9
construction workers’ wages. Aloa
with this it is proposed to deprivé
union members of the right to vote of
contract ratifications. It would
give International ‘Union officials *
free hand on strike authorization, a
well as to approve or disapprove ©
local union agreements. More stfit’
gent no-strike provisions in unio? |
agreements are proposed. The handliné
of jurisdictional disputes. betwee” |
unions and hiring hall procedures
which is labor’s business, is to be intel
fered with by the employers and tHe
courts.

A similar procedure is intended het
in Ontario, and across Canada.
accreditation of employers’ organiZ®”
tions will have the effect of increasing
employers’ powers of interferenc®
aided by all the powers of the stal®
exercised through litigations and th®
courts,

While building trades organizatio®
may be the first victims of such double
dealing and coercion, no union will 0? |
immune from its effects of Bill 16% |
once it is proclaimed law. :

Finally, there is the calculated li@ }
about “runaway construction settle |
ments” leading to “cost-push” inflatiol
Apart from the fact that state policie’
supporting the aims of big busines® }
are the source of inflation, and th@
labor is its victim, construction work: |
ers’ average wages show a persistel
tendency to decline. Despite substal
tial increases in hourly wage rates
some trades, real wages are falling ™
terms of take-home pay and its buyila]|
power.

Average wages in Canadian manu)
facturing. industries declined to $117.19)
in March from $117.33 in February % 7
this year. Average weekly wages !
mining were $151.42 in March, com¥™
pared to $150.10 in February. In oa

|

struction, the average weekly wage?
were $145.24 in March, compared t07
$159.24 in February.

Dangerous Compromises

Organized workers in Canada hav@
rightly refused to concede any govert
ment’s right to impose wage freezes
or to control workers’ income throu,
government - employer - dictated guidé
lines. Even the implicit acceptance 9
any such policies (providing all in”
come is controlled) was rejected by |
the Edmonton CLC Convention, and bY ©
the OFL Convention before that, last |
November. Workers know only t00 7
well that so-called overall controls ©
would mean control of wages only: |
while monopolies would continue
fix prices ina state dominated by thé —
employers.

What the monopolies and gover —
ments have failed to accomplish bY