_ Shingle mill controversy i i te BOGE The direct imposition of right- to-work legislation may still be too controversial, but the Social Credit government is apparently ap- proaching it obliquely with legisla- tion that would make it easier to decertify unions widely expected in the spring legislative session. Reports from Victoria last week indicated that a Socred caucus meeting last Tuesday devoted con- siderable time to the issue of changes to the labor code — a key target for several Socreds including economic development minister Don Phillips — and that amend- ments were impending. The reports have given new Significance to the highly- publicized case of shingle workers ae at Janbar Enterprises Ltd. shingle mill in Mission where some workers are seeking to decertify the - International Woodworkers which has opposed their scheme to work for about 27 percent less than union scale. The Janbar mill, which closed down some months ago with IWA members still owed $40,000 in back wages and benefits, reopened this week after a mainly non-union crew was recruited from around the province. Former mill super- visor Abe Morigeau stated that he asked former employees to return to work at reduced rates but most refused. The reopening was preceded by widespread publicity which focuss- ed on employers’ claims that Jan- bar and three other mills in the Mis- sion area would be able to operate with full crews only if the IWA would accept a rollback in the union scale. _The three other mills — Green River Log Sales, Stoneage Cedar Products and Scott Cedar Pro- Bill Kashtan to tour B.C. Communist Party leader Bill Kashtan will outline the Pparty’s program for full employment at a series of “hard times dinners” in B.C. centres this month. He is scheduled to speak in Kelowna, Feb. 8; Victoria, Feb. 9; Port Alberni, Feb. 10; Campbell River, Feb. 11; Nanaimo, Feb. 12: and Vancouver, Feb.17. : , , IBUNE Published weekly at Suite 101 — 1416 Commercial Drive, “ Vancouver, B.C. V6L 3X9. Phone 251-1188. ts Read the paper that fights for labor ducts — are all owned by a single family. The IWA is opposing the special arrangement, insisting that the mills live up to the provisions of the union’s master agreement. But those now working at Janbar have initiated a decertification applica- tion which is now before the LRB — signed by those recruited from around the province. “T didn’t recognizea single name on the decertification application,”’ IWA first vice-president Bob Blan- chard told the Tribune Tuesday, adding that they “‘had not had a single call from any IWA member’’ about accepting rollbacks in union- won wages and conditions in return for the reopening of the mill. ANALYSIS The added danger posed by the Janbar scheme was seen Tuesday when Forest Industrial Relations presented a formal demand to the IWA that it accept wage conces- sions throughout the shingle in- dustry. The union has rejected the demand. Blanchard also cited a report on a Vancouver radio talk show which revealed that Bill Ritchie, the Socred MLA for Central Fraser Valley, had held discussions with the shingle mill owners. Ritchie is a prime mover in the Socred cam- paign to change the labor code. And the current effort by Janbar to have the IWA decertified is not the first. An application was also made two years ago but it was re- jected by the Labor’ Relations Board because of evidence of collu- sion between the employees mak- ing the application and the mill Owner. A more recent decertification application by employees at Green River Log Sales was also turned down by the LRB. But for the Social Credit govern- ment and particularly for ardent right-to-work advocates such as Ritchie and Phillips, every incident is to be exploited to demonstrate that jobs would be available if only workers would dump their unions and accept lower wages. Ritchie was quoted last week, Stating: “‘The pressure is coming from working people all over B.C. Times are tough and jobs are hard to get but the union bosses are say- ing do it our way or else.’ In the same interview, Phillips claimed that he heard ‘‘cases every day . . . where a business had been MNOS Sa ee eS RI aS ae on & PavrOrsnwn >. fete Provinte. 2 cron 5 ue e Postal Gods ! am enclosing: : M Tyr. $140 2 yrs. s25 6) 6 mo. $8 0 & OldO New () Foreign 1 year $15 (1 Bill me later 2 Donation$.......... J FLY LP LS LS LP EP LD LT EP EF FB PACIFIC TRIBUNE— FEBRUARY 4, 1983—Page 12 _ shadowed by Socred plan. _ for changes to labor code unionized, the workers take another vote and 60 percent decide that they want to be non-union’? but are turned down by the LRB. He also claimed that “‘the poor little business” ... hasn’t got a hope in hell against those high- priced labor lawyers.” That argument is the same familiar one put forward by the right-to-work Independent Con- tractors and Businessmen’s Association — at whose meetings Phillips has frequently been a speaker in the past. In fact, only a small minority of decertification applications are re- jected by the LRB — and in many of those cases, the evidence of employer manipulation is so over- whelming that a vote could not possibly determine the workers’ wishes. Under the labor code, a union can be decertified if the application is made at least 10 months after the initial certification and after the LRB has investigated to determine the wishes of the majority. Often a vote is ordered. The changes apparently being considered by the government could eliminate the investigation _and order a mandatory vote. In the case of Janbar, that vote would be loaded in favor of the employer. Also reportedly under con- sideration is an amendment to the labor code which would provide the appeal of LRB decisions to cabinet or to the labor minister —a change which is potentially even more regressive. : The Janbar case also underscores the danger that current economic conditions and massive unemployment could be used, together with amendments to the labor code, as a lever to pry open union contracts. If workers and their unions do not accept wage rollbacks, employers may lay off or even shut a plant down — and then promise jobs in return for a decer- tification application. The danger was emphasized last week by B.C. Federation of Labor president Jim Kinnaird who term- ed the expected changes to the labor code ‘‘the most serious threat to its (labor’s) existence since the right-to-work campaign of the mid and late ’70s.’’ He called on the 500 affiliated local unions of the federation ‘‘to begin to mobilize their members to fight the Social Credit government on the proposed labor code amend- ments. “‘The labor movement had been determined to address the real issues of the day such as unemploy- ment and the needs of working people while the Socreds have been trying to generate an election using labor as the scapegoat,’’ Kinnaird charged. “Tt is unfortunate that the right wing hawks in the Social Credit cabinet have been successful in side-tracking their party into carry- ing out policies that will cause ir- reparable damage to industrial relations in this province.” He said that the federation was prepared ‘‘to fight the government’’ over changes to the labor code. Study urges halt to Cruise plans Continued from page 1 position on disarmament. So have Vancouver’s people, who voted 80 percent for disarmament in the referendum. So I’m hereto- day on behalf of council and the people of the city.”’ Many of the salient points in the Cruise study have been made before: like other peace groups and individuals, it argues that the Cruise constitutes a dangerous escalation in the arms race. The sophisticated characteristics of the weapon upsets the rough pari- ty between the nuclear arsenals of the U.S. and the U.S.S.R. and make the job of arms verification extremely difficult, if not im- possible. What the study has to offer is a perspective based on numerous reports by respected arms monitoring organizations. It pro- vides a detailed description of the technology of the new weapon, its planned deployment and an ex- amination of the most probable response by the Soviet Union to the Cruise presence in Europe and its use in a conflict. “The definition of the Cruise missile as an armed, unmanned, self-guiding, expendable aircraft only hints at its sophistication,”’ the study asserts. There are several versions of the Cruise ready for deployment in land, sea and air-based opera- tions. All are equipped to carry nuclear warheads in the 200 to 250 kiloton range, ‘‘small by modern standards, perhaps, but 15 to 20 times as powerful as the bomb that destroyed Hiroshima.’’ The sea-launched version can be fired from an or- dinary torpedo tube. That latter feature underscores the point disarmament activists have been making about the Cruise: that unlike current weaponry, its presence cannot easily be verified. A clear knowledge of the other side’s capabilities has been one of the safeguards against nuclear war and provides a basis under which arms reduction and limitation talks can take place, they argue. Cruise missiles are easy to con- ceal, being small with an average length of 6 metres. But it is their ability to penetrate current Soviet defenses by avoiding radar detec- tion that is their most dangerous characteristic, according to the study. The Science for Peace study provides a detailed outline of the onboard computer guidance system of the Cruise, a system that allows the missile to fly atlow levels and change its altitude ac- cording to the terrain. Addi- tionally, each missile is program- med to take a different and fre- quently changing flight path, making interception almost im- possible. The Cruise _possesses un- precented accuracy — it can strike within 30 to 100 metres of its target — and is ‘‘estimated to have a range of about 2,500 km, which is sufficient to make over 80 percent of Soviet targets vulnerable to Cruise missiles launched from Europe or from bombers staying out of range of Soviet air defences,’’ states the study. The Cruise threat places an in- - credible demand on the Soviet’s to update their defense system “ment figures that, ‘‘The notion since “using present detectiol and interception systems thé Soviet Union would be unable to stop a Cruise missile attack. Evel) detecting an individual Crus missile would be unlikely . «+ the scientists report. Because of its incredible curacy and smail but intense bias’ power, the Cruise is ideally suites as a weapon to destroy milita rather than civilian targets. ¥Y knocking out Soviet missiles # their silos the weapon incre4 the possibility, in the minds y U.S. military strategists, of wim ing a nuclear war. That strategy is call “‘counterforce,’’ and the Cruis¢ the thin edge of the wedge invo ing U.S. plans for an | capable of destroying all Soviet weapons before they can be laul} ched, state the scientists. The Cruise also figures int0} another U.S. strategy, that of “limited” nuclear war whereby only certain targets would be hit as a means to “‘persuade’’ thé} enemy that further warfare would not be in its interests. Such col} cepts are dangerous since thé} former would trigger a “gunch on warning” policy while the lal- ter would, given the difficulty # ascertaining the nature of 4 Cruise attack, certainly lead to all-out nuclear conflict, according to the study. ” The Soviet SS-20 missile often touted by U.S. and NATO. Officials as the justification for the creation of the Cruise and i$ companion, the Pershing I missile — but such justifications are false, said Andrew Spence, one of the report’s authors. The Cruise missile is designed to hit stationary targets. But the SS-20 is deployed in mobile laut chers, and the current arsenal 0 Poseidon submarine missiles an the missiles in France and Britaill already function as a deterrent tO the SS-20, he explained. The study does not take sides by giving an opinion on which major power constitutes a threat to world peace. But is reinforces arguments by leading disarma- that the Soviet Union enjoys nuclear superiority over thé United States and its allies is simp- ly inaccurate and cannot be used to justify Cruise missile deploy- ment.” It goes on to state: ‘‘The same pattern has been followed throughout the nuclear arms} race: United States and NATO} superiority in nuclear weaponry | prompts the Soviet Union to} engage in massive armS] buildup. . .”’ Dr. George Spiegelman of the} University of B:G:'s microbiology department and president of the B.C. chapter of Science for Peace said that if the Canadian government agrees to test the Cruise, it ‘‘acceeds to the perpetuation of the arms race. - “What is important is the political statement implicit in the choice,”’ he said. Spiegelman agreed that public }) pressure is a likely cause of the } delay for about one month of the signing of the Cruise agreement, | while Luis Sobrino, a co-author, said a copy_of the study will be forwarded to the external affairs department.