™ cheep! B.C. workers face union busting Building trades workers in Britis.. Columbia are faced with an onslaught of union busting by an unholy alliance of anti-union employers in the. United Right-to-Work Association, still more anti-union employers in the Independent Contractors’ and Businessmen’s As- sociation and a new ‘‘union’’ called the Canadian Construction and Indus- trial Union, (CCIU). The new “‘union’’, the,CCIU, is taking advantage of the legitimate desires of many building trades workers in B.C. for more Canadian autonomy within their unions. But in waving the Canadian flag and claiming to fight for Canadian unionism, the CCIU is, in fact, using these issues to further their own partisan interests. In furthering their own partisan interests the CCIU have started raiding the Carpenters Union in Duncan, B.C. at the Whatley-Thomasson Construction Co. Interestingly, the small Whatley- Thomasson Construction Co. seems to have no objection to its workers being represented by-the CCIU although, in the past, the company waged an unre- lenting struggle against the Carpenters Union. Note should also be taken, t that the Whatley-Thomasson Construction Co. joined the “‘right-to-work’’ organization — the Independent Contractors’ and Businessmen’s Association — more than one year ago. And the ICBA has been busy. Evidence is now at hand that the ICBA has been passing out information to the workers employed by them, on how to make contact with the new “union’’ the CCIU. The January issue of On the Level, the publication of local unions affiliated to the B.C. Provincial Council of Carpen- ters, exposed the collusion of the “‘right-to-work”’ organizations and the new ‘‘union’’ and exposed the dangers involved in dual-unionism as represented by the CCIU. In a front page article, On the Level noted, ‘‘The establishing of dual unions, if successful, accomplishes through an attack at the workers’ backs what the two ‘‘right-to-work’’ associa- tions are attempting to do head on. Dual unions lead to the same lower wages, longer hours and poor working condi- _ tions. No wonder a recent United Right- to-Work Association news bulletin speaks favorably about the Canadian Construction and Industrial Union.” Thenlater inthe same article the unholy alliance of the: ‘‘right-to-work’’ organi- zations with the move to dual unionism, was tied in with the general onslaught against the labor movement and On the Level said: ‘‘Like the so-called ‘right-to-work’ campaign, the setting up of dual unions and the general attack on the labor movement are part and parcel of an attack to reduce workers’ living ' standards and conditions." In still another article in ‘‘On the Level’’ dealing with what and who is the CCIU, mention is made of the CCIU's playing on the issue of Canadian au- tonomy. ‘*The CCIU loudly proclaims local autonomy” the editors write;.** Ar- ticle 15 (a) of their constitution states ‘Local autonomy shall be fostered and encouraged.’ *’ Brave words. Nothingis _ said of the national union's per capita tax of 75% of the dues levied by each local, plus 100% of the field’ dues. What Campbell, Kiniak, McClurg and .com- pany (of officers of the CCIU) can’t grasp PACIFIC TRIBUNE—MARCH 23, 1979--Page 6 is that Canadian autonomy is something more than words on a piece of paper wrapped in a Canadian flag. Their union - principles are exposed also by the fact that, among other things, scabbing is not a violation of their constitution. ‘One could ask,’’ the article con- tinues, ‘‘Is the CCIU’s membership’s ‘right-to-scab’ the reason that the United Right-to-Work Association has endorsed the CCIU? After all, the ‘right-to-work’ has always meant in fact the right to scab | by the twisted logic of the anti-union employers.” One could ask, indeed! Third party intervention’ centre-piece of Tories’ C-22 By DON STEWART _ Local 105, International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers Construction workers in the organized building trades sector across Ontario re- fiect a feeling of frustration and a degree of hopelessness at this time. The collab- oration between the upper echelon of union leadership, the employers and their regulatory body in the person of Bill Davis and his Tory government, in ram- ming Bill 22 down their throats had pro- duced this ‘temporary phenomenon among union construction workers ac- ross the province. This article cannot and does not at- tempt to rehash the whole process that resulted ‘in the passage of Bill 22. How- ever it should be noted that in all parts of Ontario, where memberships were alerted-to the dangers and import of this "bill, they fought against its coming into effect. The appointed officers of the so-called International Unions (Road men), in at- tempting to sell Bill 22 to their members, placed the question as one of accepting or rejecting the principle of province- wide bargaining. This was and still is un- true. What was then, and still is the centre-piece of Bill 22 is — ‘‘ Third Party Intervention,”’ or to put it even more succinctly: the government acting as an iristrument for the large construction firms with co-operation and connivance from many top union officials. This truly ‘bargaining from the top’ acts as the determinant for wages and working conditions for Ontario construc- tion workers: It constitutes a reversal from the formerly accepted practice of free collective bargaining, and actually removes the construction worker from . bargaining decisions. It is a complete de- ‘nial of the autonomous rights of local unions. Under Bill 22, a strike vote conducted ‘by all locals across the province in one trade could end up with a 98% vote in > favor of ‘‘hitting the bricks’’ and the probability of strike outcome is practi- cally zilch. How could this be? All ballots are counted and tallied, then referred for final decision to a com- mittee of top officers for each local in Ontario. As you can see from this a local with 75 members from some remote area has the same input in decision as a local etc. etc. Construction industry unemployment figures — Dec. 15, 1978 ; for B.C., the Yukon and North West Territories Construction Constr. Wkrs. Percen- Building Trade Membership Unemployed | tage Boilermakers 625 406 65.0% Bricklayers 872 150 17.2% Carpenters a 12,758 4,463 35.0% Cement Masons 545 160 29.5% {t Culinary Workers 700 350 50.0% a1 Elevator Constructors 321 32 10.0% 7 Glaziers 430 70 16.3% = Electricians 3,221 901 28.0% r insulators 300 45 15.0% ‘ lronworkers 1,300 : 424 32.7% 77 Laborers 7,700 3,050 39.7% Machinists 200 se a 6.0% Operators ee 6,120 2,118 34 t Painters 1,650 479 29.0% I Plasterers 170 54 32.3% t Plumbers 4,030 1,601 39.8% ‘ Sht. Mtl. Wkrs. & Roofers 1,750 - 100 5.7% Teamsters 1,800 550 30.6% Tilesetters 90 5 5.6% Tile Helpers 40 2 5.0% 44,622 14,972 33.6% e These figures do not account for the entire membership even if Locals are mainly | engaged in construction. For example; the Operators have many shop members. ] Teamsters have many thousands more than those engaged directly i in construction | e The ieee are, of course, for the organized construction industry. of 3 or 4,000 members in a large centre. The local from the smaller community could be improving their lot by casting a vote for acceptance, but the larger local would be losing ground. Last year the organized section of building trades construction workers in Ontario signed contracts locking them into 2-year mandatory contracts of just over 5% per year wage increase. This means we took an actual wage cut at the present rate of inflation — being over 9%- of 4% per year. The government has the right under Bill 22 to designate bargaining units. They have already stated they are.going to appoint an International union rep- resentative to each bargaining unit for * the next round of negotiations. This falls in line with their plans. Bring more so-called ‘‘responsible”’ representatives to the negotiating table to prevent the ‘‘trouble makers’’ (the memberships) from hammering out a de- cent settlement they can live with. These so-called ‘‘responsible”’ gentlemen have ~ the task to aid the government and big business pile the cost of their recession, with its attendant unemployment and in- flation, on the backs of the workers. One of the reasons given tojustify pass- ing Bill 22 was the well worn out lie, advanced by the ruling class and propa- gated by their government spokesmen, that high wages are the cause of inflation. A principle target of this attack is the myth of super wages in the construction industry..The period of wage controls should have laid this false premise to rest. Wages were and still are depressed, while prices of food, energy, housing, steel, manufactured goods, etc., are still zooming upward. And, of course, so is inflation. The only thing that has been checked is the right of the producer, the worker to hack out a decent living for himself and his family. Over the past few years the number of man-hours have decreased sharply when related to the costs of materials and supplies in the construction industry. This has something to do with-uncon- scionable profits which the big business Government of Bill Davis progpens at all costs in Ontario. . The cost of labor per unit of output is considerably less over the last number of years in relation to construction development. This is due to modern machinery and increased pressure for more production on workers. This has contributed to the present large increase }) in unemployment in the building ind try. At this time in the Hamilton a there are close to 40% of organized build- ing tradesmen out of work. Yet big bu ness keeps bleating about the lack of skil led tradesmen. Couple this unemployment with the fact that most of the benefits that other | workers have built into their contracts yj; come directly out of the wage packet, such as: OHIP (health insurance), wel- \y fare plans, pension plans, paid holidays, % etc. Add on top of this the nature of construction work — much of it per formed outside in extreme weather con- \ ditions, generally poor working condi- -tions, with no seniority rights, plus 2 average work year of 8 months or less — } and it can be seen that the myth of construction workers as a member of the | aristocracy of labor is a false one.) The organization and certification of "\; new shops, work sites and locals is made |__ virtually impossible for construction © unions blanketed by this legislation. The only way a shop can be brought into the union is by accepting the complete pro- vincial agreement. In outlying districts of a union’s j diction, where wages and working condi- tions are backward, this denies the po sibility of improving the conditions on gradual basis and continues the spread o} non-union shops, and also acts as a brak on the advance of the living standards o} construction workers across Ontario Many of these unions already had pra vincial agreements but recognized difference between voluntary ag ments reached by their membership’s forts, and the forced ‘Provincial ag ments’’ with third party interventio under Bill 22, which turned out to b something other than genuine provincia contracts. These forces are not beheaded bu fe perhaps temporarily disunited. However when the full impact of Bill 22 starts to be felt and fully understood, possibi around the next round of negotiatio: building trades: workers across Onta will find new ways to unite to restore fi and full collective bargaining and fo the repeal of Bill 22. ;