THE WESTERN CANADIAN LUMBER WORKER

BARGAINING & AUTOMATION

ed to provide for diverse job situations, a num-
ber of aspects of the contract must be considered.

It is important to note also that the scope of
collective bargaining in this regard is limited.
Unions will find it necessary to consider a con-
tinuing demand for acceptance of greater social
responsibility on the part of management and
government, if all the displaced are to be re-
employed.

The general consensus among outspoken rep-
resentatives of management, labour and govern-
ment is that automation is causing the displace-
ment of large numbers of workers in many com-
panies and industries. There is reason to believe,
they say, that this displacement will continue
and probably at an increased rate.

The displacement is not limited to the com-
panies or industries where the automation takes
place. In fact, much of it occurs where manage-
ment is slow to automate and as a result cannot

continue to compete profitably.

DEPEND ON U.I.C.

Almost invariably the workers who lose their
jobs as a result of automation, suffer serious de-
creases in income. Many are unable to find im-
mediate employment at other jobs and are forced
to depend on unemployment insurance, which is
considerably less than their former earnings, and
has a maximum duration.

At the end of this period of unemployment
insurance benefits, if the workers are still un-
employed they must turn to social assistance,
which decreases their income still further.

In addition to the decrease in cash income,
workers displaced by automation suffer losses in
contract benefits, such as health and welfare, life
insurance, hospital and medical care, accident
and sickness benefit, pensions, which are usually
discontinued at the time of termination or shortly
thereafter.

Even those displaced workers who are able
to secure immediate employment elsewhere
usually must accept lower wages and welfare
benefits, at least for a period of time, until they
relnie skill and secure seniority in their new
jobs.

Displaced workers unable to find other jobs
within the same company lose valuable benefit
rights which they have accumulated over a num-

ber of years, in such matters as pensions, vaca-
tions, and sick leave. The loss of accumulated
pension rights is especially serious for workers
over 50.

Even if the displaced workers are able to find
employment in another plant of the same com-
pany, they usually lose their accumulated com-
petitive-status seniority rights including impor-
tant advantages with respect to such things as
layoffs, promotions, job and work assignments,
and shift preferences. Both the benefit rights
and the competitive-status rights frequently have
resulted from collective bargaining in which these
rights were negotiated in lieu of wage increases,
thus equity as well as need indicates that dis-
placed workers should be protected against the
loss of accumulated benefits and seniority rights.

The federal and provincial governments have
done very little to provide for the needs and
the equities of displaced workers. There is gen-
eral agreement upon the inadequacy of unem-
ployment insurance and relief programs. The
official program to help displaced workers find
new jobs is also inadequate. Industry and labour
representatives all agree that the employment
service has not been providing the kind of help
which displaced workers need.

It would be presumptuous for any one person
to claim knowledge of complete and immediate
solutions for automation’s problems.

One useful approach to a constructive discus-
sion of bargaining demands in this field is con-
sideration of proposals already put forward by
pioneers in the area of collective bargaining, as
these relate to technological changes.

To promote a discussion of this nature, a num-
ber of clauses taken from existing contracts,
mainly in the United States, are listed here. They
should be viewed with caution by IWA members

for many of them in their present form are not>
applicable to lumber production operations. How-
ever, some of them may hold the germ of a use-
ful idea and possibly trigger other ideas.

The purpose is to examine these with refer-
ence to all those clauses of the IWA contract
that are likely to require amendment to meet

changed production methods.

It is hoped that such a discussion will place
some of these major bargaining problems in per-
spective before the union’s members determine
their next bargaining package.

Furthermore, the IWA is committed to the
proposition that attempts should be made to
establish a common policy on automation among
all the unions related to the lumber industry

along the Pacific Coast.

Let, us therefore, look at the whole picture
— and +the relevant contract provisions.

PRIORITY IN BARGAINING

Usually, top priority in bargaining is given
to wage rates.

This will still be necessary in 1966, for rea-
sons relating to technological change. These rea-
sons are obvious:

(1) Higher wage levels providing increased
distribution of wage income will stimulate
demand on production to maintain em-
ployment.

(2) Living costs have reached an all-time
high in Canada. Recent studies indicate
that basic family requirements are above
the average weekly earnings.

(3) Real earnings, or income adjusted to living
costs, have remained almost stationary for
a number of years.

(4) The trend toward increased productivity
as indicated in the accompanying diagram
and table, (See Appendix “A”, “A[1]’”),
fully justifies wage increases as necessary
to allow workers a fair share of increased
profits derived from automation.

APPENDIX “A (1)” }
Growth Rates* of Output per Unit of Labour

Input, Commercial Nonagricultural Industries,
Canada, 1947 - 63.

Commercial
nonagricultural
industries
Manufacturing
Non-

manufacturing 4
industries
(commercial
nonagricultural)

Output _ 3.7 4.6
Persons employed _.. 2.0 1.0 2.5
Man-hours __--..--- 1.3 0.6 1.7
Output per person

employed .._.-.._ 2.3 2.6 2.1
Output per man-hour 3.0 3.1 29

*Calculated by fitting a straight line to the logarithms
of the index numbers, using the least squares method.

(5) Profits and dividends are soaring to
astronomical heights. Surpluses utilized
for capital expansion are obtained to some
extend by “holding the line” on wage
rates.

Bargaining objectives as they appear in those
contracts which have already dealt with adjust-
ment to automation, appear to be as follows, in
the order of priority indicated:

(1) Negotiation of contract provisions which
require advance notice by the employer
to the union of all technological changes
that are likely to displace employees.
Such notice should give the union an op-
portunity to negotiate the conditions of
the change as it affects employees’ in-
terests.

(2) Negotiation of contract changes providing
for training and upgrading of employees
displaced or likely to be displaced through
automation and other _ technological
change to the extent that displaced work-
ers are able to progress with adequate
training.

(3) Negotiation of contract provisions for
broader seniority units, as may be possi-
ble under existing working conditions, in
order to protect older workers and those
less capable of adapting to new skills with
provision for severance pay to those who
are unavoidably displaced.

(4) Reduced hours of work in line with in-
creased productivity with tighter and ap-
propriate controls on overtime.

In a recent review of contracts held by Ameri-
can unions negotiators agreed that to a large
extent trade unions have signed away their bar-
gaining rights under their contract management
rights clauses. These are now being reopened
to deal effectively with technological change.

In many instances, new approaches to this
section of the contracts are being attempted, as
indicated in the clauses quoted below.

NON-AUTOMATED—Workers in a pre-World War 1 automobile factory assemble drive shafts by hand