The goals set for Canada's

economy for 1970 have

imporant implications for the
future of labor. Some of these

are discussed in this article
based on a study made by the
publication LABOR FACTS.

A .
L a FALL, the Economic
~ouncil of Canada issued

erst report, known as
Councipe Sch Report after the
Deutsch chairman, Dr. John
Timber which it projected a
nada Of economic goals for
Boal jt sue to 1970. The first
Dloym et Was close to full em-
Tate of ih an unemployment
Crease f Tee percent and an in-
19g3 i ean 6,364,000 jobs in
additig 883,000 in 1970, a net
1 of 1,500,000 new jobs.

ne :
Or e, the basic assumptions
Boal, at to achieve this
‘Cos: «> the council, is price-

Stabilj
Past felity. Statistics for the

“NUch ees have shown that
tiffioutg» lity is not only “very

Sible ut practically impos-
ing 2 Achieve, but the council
Peet of ee (a) the pros-
Petition iffer international com-
Ing of resulting from a lower-
Markeg Ce barriers and (b) a
oduct; and steady increase in
Years. vity during the next few

® In
ran nae €d investment in hu-
Ede and oa = improve know-
. ;
Sure ee oved mobility of re-
Ward ,q°SPecially workers) to-
Most efficient use.
Gr HGS
3 bette Ont , Sbecialization and
tion, °"8Anization of produc-

e Sw;

i Wi

lechnotaeet and more effective
e en advances.

fixeg ST€ased investment in

ang .,“apit :
nd equip at machinery

‘Brigg see Mitiative and enter-

ter \,,, “XPloring new and bet-

Sure S to use economic re-

ee th pore productively, “un-

he lure Pur of competition and
OF higher returns.”

seve
of cour ast sentence describes,
a ay old “stick and car-
nom, ©. free enterprise”
fte, ” (Which is not free and
Mpetiy; VETY enterprising) .
loteion pen Particularly from
3 “Spypntties, is the “stick”
Nadian Which will force
Ode Producers to be more
ighe, “tive and less costly.
. “Tuy eee are the “carrot”
"terprig © encourage Canadian
© in the same direction.

er
‘als . poms to be a lack of
jcncil n the thinking of the
aie ai far as the “spur and
0,00 as Ty is concerned. The
Sunt th €s not take into ac-
© very important fact

that much of the Canadian eco-
nomy is not autonomous, since
a very large part of its major
industries are controlled out-
side of Canada. Important de-
cisions concerning economic de-
velopment are made outside
Canada and from the viewpoint
of the parent company, which
may or may not coincide with
the interests of the Canadian
subsidiary or of Canada as a
whole.

The Economic Council’s re-

port includes automation among
various types and aspects of
technological changes:

“In a sense these changes are
a continuation and acceleration
of the changes initiated by the
industrial revolution, which have
been reflected in a dramatic in-
crease in living standards in the
western world.”

Needless to say, a good many
social scientists and others dis-
agree with this view, and main-
tain that automation is a com-
pletely new kind of develop-
ment, entirely different in na-
ture and implications from
mechanization which came with
the industrial revolution.

The council’s view of techno-
logical advances (including
automation) is that they “create
new employment and new occu-
pations by bringing new proces-
ses and products into use, re-
ducing costs and widening mar-

kets.”

In his recently-published book,
“Labor and the Public Interest”,
U.S. Secretary of Labor Willard
Wirtz refers to the “dangerous
myth” that automation creates
as many jobs as it destroys, and
notes that. “the jobs machines
create are usually for different
people than those they replace”.

Arthur V. Piggot, vice-chair-
man of the Canadian Scholarship
Trust Foundation, has estimated
that automation will eliminate at
least 200,000 jobs a year during
the next two years.

The council’s goal of 144 mil-
lion new jobs by 1970 is based
on a projected increase in the
labor force and the reduction of
unemployment to three prcent.
But does the council take into
account the disappearance of
many of the present jobs? In one
case, that of the “primary 1n-
dustries” (agriculture, mining,
logging), it is estimated that
there will be 100,000 fewer jobs
by 1970 than at pesent. Unfor-
tunately, no estimate is made
for manufacturing and other -in-
dustries. If Mr. Piggot. is right,
then the number of new jobs to
be found by 1970 would be de-
termined by the increase in the

labor force plus those displaced
by automation or other techno-
logical developments, the total
needed might be around 214 mil-
lion new jobs.

The council places great em-
phasis on what is calls “labor
market policy”, whose object is
to “bring about the matching of
supply and demand for labor in
specific localities and occupa-
tions in a way that manpower
recources can be most produc-
tively utilized.”

The key element in this policy
is labor mobility, of three main
types:

@ moving from one occupation

ie

‘FREREER ERTS S

to another (involving re-train-
ing). :

® moving from one industry to
another (may involve re-train-
ing).

@ moving from one locality to
another (may involve change of
occupation and industry).

The report stresses that labor
mobility cannot be made the sole
responsibility of the individual
or of a local community.

“The problems associated with
mobility . . . can be dealt with
adequately only with the as-
sistance of appropriate public
policy.”

Specifically, the council pro-

The need for a positive pro-
gram of action by government
to assure that 1,500,000 new
jobs will ve created in the
period up to 1970 was under-
lined by 150 delegates to a
national council meeting of
United Electrical, Radio and
Machine Workers (UE) held
in Toronto recently.

Noting that the report of
the Economic Council, which
considered this number of
new jobs absolutely neces-
sary, had failed to make re-
commendations on how this
goal is to be achieved, the UE,
which represents 23,000 wor-
kers in the electrical, radio
and machine industry, called
for a program of. action to
create the needed jobs. The
union proposals are:

1. Expand consumer pur-
chasing power. Higher wages
and salaries. Any serious
wages restraint will make it
impossiblesto attain the pro-
jected target.

2. Develop Canadian manu-
facture of products and parts
imported from USA.

How it can be done

3. Cut military - spending
and allocate these funds to
needed national projects such .
as an east-west power grid,
rebuilding Canada’s merchant
marine, northern development
and new industries in de-
pressed areas. «

4. Revise the tax system so
as to shift the burden off ldw-
incomes and onto those able
to pay.

5. Public control of auto-
mation so that its introduc-
tion will bolster, rather than
harm, the economy.

6. Large-scale, subsidized
housing developments. .

7. Establish three new mini-
stries geared to an economy
of full employment—Ministry
of Consumer Welfare, Minis-
try of Imports and a Ministry
of Energy.

8. Enact progressively shor-
ter working week laws, low-
ering hours of work by one
hour each year up to 1970 as
an aid in the massive job
creation needed to reach the
needed job target.

poses a program of “mobility al-
lowances” along the lines of
those in effect in a number of
European countries. It considers
that the present “mobility in-
centives” provided in Canada
under the Manpower Consulta-
tive Service are completely in-
adequate and ineffective. The re-
port proposes that the National
Employment Service be _ the
agency to administer a “mobility
allowances” program. This is de-
scribed as “an integrated system
of allowances . . . to cover all

essential costs of the worker and .

his family, beginning with their
removal and continuing over a
reasonable period of financial
adjustment to their new environ-
Meneses 2

The council’s proposals for
“mobility allowances” and im-
proved training anc re-training
programs are welcome and
sound, but do not go far enough.
After all, in addition to the finan-
cial expcnses of moving from
one place to another, there are
the losses suffered through giv-
ing up seniority rights, vacation
and pension credits and the in-
vestment in skills developed
over a period of many years.

These are the points stressed
by U.S. Secretary of Labor
Wirtz in his new book. The U.S.
cabinet minister maintains that
it is management’s responsibility
to give a man displaced by a
machine another job in the same
firm without reduction in wages
or loss of benefits, and to pro-

_ vide full training or re-training

if the new job requires it.

In all fairness to the Economic
Council, it should be noted that
it does recognize the problems
involved. Towards the end of
its report, it lists some of the
“complex issues” involved in ad-
justment to change and greater
mobility:

@ The avoidance of excessive
burdens of adjustment and the
working out of equitable meth-
ods for sharing the benefits.

@ appropriate methods for
more systematic and informed
forward planning for orderly
change.

@ Greater cooperation and
consultation between manage-
ment and labor, based on better
information and adequate longer
range anticipation of impending
changes.”

Though expressed in rather
general and vague language,
these proposals are quite in line
with the basic program advanced
by labor to meet the problems of
rapid technological change.

July 16, 1965—PACIFIC TRIBUNE—Page 3