A ranization and automation is em- per revaluation of jobs. A tape-con- i lathe is devalued and hourly y ies are cut even though production is bstantially increased. We are demand- ‘ that no job be downgraded and that os Tates paid be increased in conside- “on of increased output. Anothex area of effort is in-plant train- f Opportunity. We have had some ited success in obtaining agreement ie Where new jobs are introduced and i “fe are no skills available employees ! apply for a training course. Senior- ‘a iS given preference if abilities are 4 ttively equal. H*mand of the government? ANY of the demands raised in col- lective bargaining have to be ‘,, {Ought for in the political arena. € two issues I have already referred Tie the need to win fewer work hours, 2 heed to restrict management rights are examples. Labor must press for legislation which ti Provide for the progressive reduc- hy : of the work week as improved ge anization and automation cause job 8. Management rights as understood thr Y must be modified and restricted ‘ough legislation. fe At this time, in the federal election, ind of legislation needed to assure | “hefits of automation to the people ) hat be borne in mind. Labor votes te luld go to those candidates and par- i; Who will, for example, fight for legis- Bien to control and license the intro- pon of automation and other pro- |}8es which will displace labor and for “tislation which will assure that in- ae is maintained wherever displace- nt occurs. ; st is clear that the old-line parties can- ce be trusted to legislate along these S. #F 1 Itis suggested in some quarters that oad of the striking Toronto printers .” have no jobs to return to as a sult of automation and that a simi- wdustry where B-A refinery workers Te on strike. Would you care to com- Ment on this? 3 £. . You're fired|” lar Situation could develop in the oil . ~ “Congratulations. You've automated everything . . = T IS not true that the striking printers have no jobs to return to, or that the jobs of oil-refinery workers will dis- appear. In the printing trade, of course, the introduction of computer control has, in a large measure, changed the character of the work and some jobs have been eliminated. The printers recognize these changes and a cause of the strike was the printers’ insistence, and the publish- ers’ refusal, to have jurisdiction over the new processes. All printers and oil-refinery workers have not been réplaced by computers by any means. In the main they are re- placed by scabs and strikebreakers. Higher mechanization and automa- tion, however, will bring about changes which the trade unions will have to take into full account. : These changes involve the composi- tion of the labor force, the numbers, skills and location of jobs. Trade unions will be required to bargain in some new - fields, such as job training, employer- financed general education, sport and recreation activities. New approaches will be required to such questions as safety and health. Again, the demands at the bargaining table will have a close relation to de- mands for new legislation. As automation is more widely irtro- duced changes in the structure and functions of unions will inevitably un- dergo change. Before organic unity of the trade unions is achieved there will certainly be the necessity of industry- wide consultative unity and unity in ac- tion between the various unions. It 1s possible that some federated structure on an industry basis may evolve out of the necessity to deal with problems com- mon to all. Automation will also require much greater community, legislative and poli- tical activity by the unions. It has also been suggested that in the process of automation a situation could develop in which a small, highly- organized section of the working class might enjoy many of the benefits while a large, unorganized section would be left to fend for itself. What is your ~ view? HAVE no doubt that if employers were unhindered in planning the new technology great numbers of our peo- _ ple would probably be reduced to re- liance on forms of social security and a relatively small section of labor would emerge as a fairly highly-paid elite. Em- ployers would exploit such a situation very much to their advantage. History gives some examples of a “bribed” sec- tion of the working class being used against the class as a whole. But I believe the trade unions will face up to this possibility and will not accept the concept which degrades work- ing people to a useless life on the dole however adequate the dole may or may not be. The possibility that automation could produce a small elite group in labor highlights the tremendous importance of trade union and working-class unity in the struggle for collective bargaining objectives and legislative solutions. It also points to the necessity of practical and efficient educational work now in the trade union field. Is technological progress affecting the structure of the working class? ES, it is now and will more so in the future. This poses immediate prob- lems for the trade union movement in terms of organizing emphasis and techniques and in terms of giving leader- ship to trade union members on im- portant matters such as educational re- quirements and information on the new methods and new jobs the technological revolution will produce. The following facts underline the in- evitability of change: (1) In the: four-year period 1960-64 the real Gross National Product (ie. with price increases eliminated) in- creased by 20 percent. Over the same ‘period employment in productive occu- pations increased by 6 percent while in non-productive occupations the increase was 19 percent. | This is partly a reflection of the em- ployment situation discussed in answer to your first question and partly the shifting composition of the labor force. It is worth noting that employment in extractive occupations (farming, fishing; logging, trapping and mining) droppéd by 12 percent during the same four-year period. ‘Greater community, legislative and political activity by unions” (2) Trade union membership “is nov distributed roughly as follows: 6 percent in extractive industries; 75 percent in secondary industry (manufacturing, con- struction, transportation, etc.); 19 per- cent in the “non-productive” sector (finance, service and public administra- tion). To put it another way, something ap- proaching half of all employees in goods-producting and handling indus- tries are organized, while only 10 per- cent of the “non-productive” industrics are unionized. The impact of the shift- ing composition of the labor force to- ward the non-productive sector is obvious. Does large-scale foreign ownership of Canadian industry affect the way automation takes place here? EFINITELY. This is readily under- stood when we realize that the de- cisions of whether, how much and when to automate are made by parent companies in their over-all (and often world-wide interest. Being mainly Amer- ican companies they are also influenced by all the pressures generated there to favor the American economy. In some instances U.S. ownership will probably mean the Canadian subsidiary will be relegated to the role of importer of products and parts produced in the USA. It is possible that some U.S.-owned plants will be used as an automated base for exports. The specific situation in each industry, and in fact in each company, will by and large be the de- terminent. This will obviously produce difficul- ties for Canadian trade unions because the managements with whom they nego- tiate do not have the final say on ques- tions. These difficulties will probably accelerate the process toward trade- union autonomy and eventual indepen- dence. This situation could, however, be an advantage if sufficient public support can be developed in Canada to make the Canadian government take steps to pro- tect the interests of Canadians against imported ill effects of automation. The fight-back against American domination could well take on a qualitative and quantitative change as the harmful ef- fects of- U.S.-ownership become more apparent against the background of au- tomation. _,. AND NOT SO FUNNY MY DADDY'S LAIDoFF/ WHAT DOES Your DADDY DO? November 12, 1965—PACIFIC TRIBUNE—Page 7