Union action in equal pay fight By CHARNIE GUETTEL T IS common knowledge that in Canada male wage rates are high- er'than female wage rates in al- most every occupation, and that females are employed mainly in sex-typed “female” occupations regarded as inferior and therefore . presumably deserving of lower pay. _ In 1971: Canadian women employed full-time earned an average income of $4,755, and men, $8,513. Even where jobs are obviously simi- lar women are paid less than men. The Human Rights Code no longer permits employers to classify work as explicit- ly male or female, but there are still different pay scales; they are just called by different names — for. example, A scale and B scale. In a General Electric ~ plant in Ontario janitors clean work floors and janitresses clean the wash- rooms. Janitors earn A scale wages and janitresses are paid less at B scale. In one plant a woman janitress got pro- moted and receives the A scale! How do we go about bringing -wo- men’s wages into line with men’s and gaining entrance for women into work of equal value, the better to improve wages and working conditions for both men and women? The Ontario govern- - ‘ment has proposed at least two phoney solutions this year: Equal pay is an issue for the hospital workers who, for some years, have been denied the right to strike. The govern- ment appointed Dean Johnston of Western University to come up with a cure for the hospital workers’ “prob- lem,” and Johnston’s report has sug- gested the following: Strikes should. still be banned for hospital workers but (a) there should be a job evaluation re- view of classifications and (b) wage rates should be pegged to wages that have been negotiated elsewhere in in- dustries where workers do have the right to strike! Not only are strikes still to be prohibited, but since discri- mination against women prevails else- where, wages will simply be pegged to PACIFIC TRIBUNE—FRIDAY, MARCH 7, 1975—Page 6 other unequal rates. Johnston’s report advocates leaving the issue up to arbitration. But if in- spectors are to be used for anything it must be to challenge the employer’s evaluation of male and female job clas- sifications. The new amendment (134) to the Em- ployment Standards Act of Ontario is the second dead end proposal. The amendment does nothing to improve the Act, which had the following effect. In 1970 the Ontario Court of Appeals (Metto Toronto vs. Howard and War- ren) ruled, from a government inspec- tor’s testimony that female nurses - International Women’s By D.'J. LEWIS NE INDEX of the position of any group in a society is the way in which that group is treated in the law. Law not only reflects attitudes held by the class in power; it also serves to perpetuate those con- cepts which are directed at maintaining the status quo. Many groups — immig- rants, workers, youth, etc. — have been oppressed by various aspects of Canadian law. It is perhaps women, however, who are at present most dir- ‘ectly and most blatantly affected by our legal system. A few examples will show that the equality of women under the law remains a myth. The most obvious areas in which women suffer legal. discrimination are those which directly effect their eco- nomic. position. Equal pay legislation remains unattainable, and what meagre protection exists for women in this area .is. almost impossible to enforce. Canadian women lost seven-billion dol- lars last year as a result of unequal pay with men in identical jobs. This figure rises. much higher ifthe concept “equal pay for work of equal value” is applied. Few would disagree “in the- ‘ ectly a workplace issue, nevertheless, quate care that perpetuates the com) | ~Women 4 ory” that women are entitled to equal Fe pay. Yet, in practice, it is simply too™ expensive a proposition for the capi/® talist class to accept. Hence, the laws and the practice arising from those Phe laws maintains the inferior earning po" ?0t tential of Canadian women. Vo - Child care legislation, while not airy has great implications for the economle), status of women. The inadequacy %), child care facilities, both in number an® sometimes in quality, reinforces th) traditional role of women in the hom) and de facto, encourages them ™), maintain this role. The response of thé 7 Ontario government to pressure f0f) more child care facilities has been ¥) propose the lowering of standards fol such services. Again, it is the un lingness of government to finance adey™ cept that motherhood is women’s prin . ary role. Childcare is seen as a priviy lege, not as a right. Women who de) cide (or are forced through economi(”’ should get the same rate of pay as male orderlies on the basis that “equal pay for equal work’ meant equal pay _ for work that is the same. A lower court ruled against the inspector and the Ontario Court of Appeals agreed that the law shouldn’t be taken to the letter. This Ontario Court of Appeals inter- pretation of the old law is still in effect. The new amendment has merely added the word “substantially” to the ‘phrase equal pay for work that is the same, ~ and the intent of the law has not changed. What male job is substantially the same as, for example, a typist’s job? .jobs. . them. : effort then fell flat. Year.” Strike over equal pay closes Peterborough plant PETERBOROUGH, Ont. — Production work at the giant General Electric works here came to a halt last week when eight women who worked the production lines fought against the company’s attempt to downgrade their On the first day of their protest, the eight women set up a picketline that was honored by 1,100 workers. Eventually their picketline was honored by more than 2,000 of the 3,000 workers in the plant. : The issue that closed down production first arose in 1972, when the com- pany downgraded work for a job from male to female classifications. The union filed a grievance and the arbitrator ruled in favor of the union. But two weeks ago, the company tried to ignore the arbitrator’s report and again downgraded the job to the former female rate. The eight women who worked the job then decided that they had had enough of the com- pany’s reactionary policies and walked out of the shop. To the supervisor's dismay, they took most of the production workers in their department with By the third day of the walkouts the eight protesters had swelled in num- bers to 2,000. On the weekend the company tried to take its case to the public and placed an ad in the local newspaper, the Peterborough Examiner. The ad talked all around the issue but fatled to mention that the women were to be paid less than the men who formerly did the job. The union ’ threatened to take the company to court and the company’s public relations __. By the following Monday, with most of its production closed down, the company agreed to negotiate. When the negotiations began, the company quickly agreed to withdraw the discriminatory rates. It was the first time that the company had béen directly challenged on their downgrading program and the challenge proved successful. One worker told the Tribune, ‘“‘what started as a battle by eight women to fight the company’s discrimination eventually became a battle involving 2,000 males and females. It was a nice way to start celebrating International Women’s ~ mean to say that all his work packé ‘workers protested and it was také _to re-classify the job. GE did this © The employer must be forced to giv equal value to jobs performed by wo men based on skill, effort, responsibil’ ity, and conditions of work. | At it is, employers have many way? of getting around anti-discriminatiO! clauses in the law. Mary Switzer %) the United Electrical Workers explai? ed some of the methods used by boss@ at General Electric to pay lower rate?) to women. — a “The company’s argument in 4 cases is all right,” Switzer commente?ig “this is the men’s work and they ait; paid the high rate, but that does comes into the higher category . this is how they get around it. Whe they want to get a job cheaper thep take it out of the male “package” ale | give it to the women ‘at less pay. 1% companies can get away with murdéMi All they need, say, is a difference in” lamp, a different lighting, a differe?) shift . . . there are so many things. th) can get away with:” _ _ ire So what can we do? Keep our eye %j, developments in labor legislation, P"), some teeth into equal pay formulatio™, and preserve our rights to strike. BY our real strength lies in organizing unorganized and pushing unions ©) take action against job discriminati™ and unequal pay. to: Recent events in Peterborough, O0%,, bear this out. In a GE plant a cert@) assembly job was re-evaluated 4 downgraded as women’s work — helt subject to a lower rate of pay. +"), to arbitration. The company was 4s, clared to be in the wrong and was 0, right, but simply by giving it anoth®,. name and attaching the same wage ! as was in dispute. i The issue involved only a handful @ female employees, the males, as thé) e were in a majority, walked out in SU) port of the women. Within 48 hours © entire plant of 3,000 workers went “p,, an illegal strike over the issue (jy women’s pay. After three days they * tt turned to work on the stipulati?t that the company will undert@— genuirie negotiations for a new cla5* jn, fication for these women workers. 4” is, case is an important precedent #, further proves that our biggest stren8" ve is militant trade union action.