_ Editor’s note: The following is the third of five articles explaining the metric system for those of our members not familiar with this measuring system. In the old-English system,~ we measured volume in more than a dozen different ways: cubic inch, cubic foot, cubic yard, fluid ounce, cup, quart, ‘sag gallon, barrel (the last ew in two additionally dif- ferent sizes — Imperial, and U.S.), bushels, pecks, and for cooking purposes, the .table- spoon and teaspoon. Most of these units are related to only one or two other units at best, and very few of them are easily, or commonly; related to_ very many of the others at all. Unlike that complicated system, volume in the metric system is directly related to specific-sized cubes, which are themselves taken directly from the metre, discussed in lesson two. So, we have the cubic metre (m3); the cubic decimetre (dm3), actually usually referred to as_ the “litre”; and the cubic centi- metre (cm3, or ¢.c.). Here’s how they look in table form: 1c.c. - 1 cm3 (1 milli-litre - ml) 1000 cc’s - 1 dm3 (or ‘litre’ -- Fey2), 1000 ‘‘1”’ - 1 m8 (cubic metre) Let’s take the c.c. first. Not that there’s much to be said about it: It is a cube whose dimensions along each_ side measure 1 cm, or 10 mm (remember, about 4/10 inch). Because, however, in measur- ing any capacities, in any system, the increase in volume is related to an increase in three directions — length, height, and depth — we must multiply all three of these dimensions to obtain capacity. THE WESTERN CANADIAN LUMBER WORKER In the metric system, this involves nothing more than multiplying by 10 three times: 10 x 10 x 10 - 1000. Thus, because the dm is 10 times longer, higher, and deeper than the cm, the capacity will - be 1000 times more. This is why there are 1000 cc’s to the dm3, or litre. The litre, incidentally, is almost the same size as our quart, measuring not quite 4 inches along each side. There is another expression you may have noticed, however, probably while shopping: It is the milli-litre, “ml’’, By now, you should be able to figure that one out for yourself. According to lesson two, the expression for 1/ 1000 is ‘milli’; thus the ml is equal to 1/1000 of a litre: And as there are 1000 cc’s in a litre, this means that the cc, the cm3, and the ml are all exactly the same thing. Why use dif- ferent expressions to describe the same thing? Well, usually the ‘‘cc” refers to DRY volume, and the litre, or ‘‘ml”’ refers to WET capacity. This does not hold ‘true all of the time, but it is the case most of the time. As we can also see from the above table, 1000 dm3, or 1000 “1? is m3. sae Engineers, especially, will find metrics beautiful in many ways. As an example: In describing parts-per-million (ppm), it may be realized that the c.c. is equal to one/ millionth of a cubic metre. Thus, say, 7 ppm would be the same as 7 cc per m3. Likewise, the mms _ is one/ millionth of a litre. Next, and last, lesson — Weights. After that, a short little review. To be continued. . IN_1976 LITTLE IMPROVEMENT IN LIVING STANDARDS The 1976 data on average weekly wages and salaries won’t be available until half- way through 1977, but if the trend remains the same as in past years, most Canadians will come out of 1976 showing little real improvement, and be even a decline, in their living standards. Don’t expect to hear much about it, however, from news- editorialists and high- ' economists who will continue their tirade against gel workers trying to | a out of the economy than they put in. In 1961, they will contend, erage weekly earnings were sensible $78.24. But by 1975 he average had risen to , which they call an un- nable gain for labour, n if you take inflation into P neoonnt inflation and ressed in terms of 1961 eet S, \ > Fe Me ET ee real increase in average earnings for the 1961-75 period was just over $30, or little more than $2 a week more a year. And that’s not take-home pay either. Since governments at all levels have increased their spending and their tax bite, the $2 annual weekly gain, which is less than the productivity increases of the workers, was eroded, if not cancelled out altogether, by higher deduc- tions. Nor has the meagre increase necessarily come with clock- work regularity. Up until 1972 workers were able to get $2, $3, and sometimes $4 a week real increases each year, but in 1973 real earnings declined, and in 1974 barely rose above their 1972 levels. The increases in real average wages in 1975 repre- sented a ‘‘catch-up’”’ attempt by workers, but the gains made were not sufficient to offset the shortfall in earnings the previous two years. And then 0, This means the came the wage controls. APRIL-MAY, 1977 anxious to have the mill identified. The picture was taken by Aero Surveys Ltd., Vancouver, who are apparently no longer in business. Our guess the mill is somewhere along the Fraser River. BROADBENT CLAIMS REAL UNEMPLOYMENT 11.0% The total number of jobless last year exceeded one million, -and the .real unemployment rate was at least 11.0%, ac- cording to NDP leader Ed Broadbent. And the NDP leader has called for a com- plete investigation into the reliability of the labour force estimates released by Statistics Canada. Broadbent said in a Cam- bridge speech February 5 that “official Statistics Canada estimates, based on the revised labourforce survey question- naire, understate the real rate of joblessness by listing many unemployed people as “‘not in the labour force.” In this way, the ‘hidden -unemployed’’ — ,450,000 of them — are not counted in the official unemployment estimates. This group includes only those ‘‘not-in the labour force’? who have been fired or laid off and are no longer looking for another job. Native Canadians, people in high unemployment areas who have given up looking for non- existant jobs and women forced out of the job market due to family responsibilities are among those not counted in official unemployment statistics, Broadbent said. Added to the 735,000 officially unemployed in 1976, this means the total number of jobless last year exceeded one million, Broadbent said. By province, real unemploy- ment rates, as disclosed by Broadbent, for the first 11 months of 1976, as compared to official unemployment rates: Newfoundland: 25% vs 13.7%; PEI: 19.0% vs 9.9%; Nova Scotia: 15.0% vs 9.5%; New Brunswick: 19.0% vs 11.1%; Quebec: 13.0% vs 8.7%; On- tario: 9.0% vs 6.2% ; Manitoba: 8.0% vs 4.6%; Saskatchewan: 7.0% vs 4.1%; Alberta: 6.0% vs 3.9% ; British Columbia: 12.0% vs 8.7%. yy “These statistics show that there are 450,000 Canadians among the hidden unem- ployed,’’ Broadbent. said. “They are simply not counted. They are simply ignored. “The Trudeau government can no longer pretend’ that unemployment isn’t Canada’s most serious problem,’’ he said. ‘‘When over.one million Canadians are out of work, the federal government must deal with the crisis. Failure to do so is tantamount to dereliction of duty.’’ In the: Commons, Jean Chretien, minister of industry, trade and commerce, could not refute Broadbent’s statistics. Chretien claimed the entire question of unemployment statistics ‘‘is complex and I think we could have long discussions on the subject.” But the NDP leader called - extremely- Pa for action, not discussion, in his Cambridge speech. “Canada needs a new budget now to start the attack .on unemployment,’’ he> said. “Trudeau says Canadians can wait until April. “Canada needs to dump the AIB now so that workers and industry can produce and work - in a climate of certainty now,” the NDP leader said. “‘Trudeau says Canadians can wait another year. “J say dump the AIB and_ launch the fight against unem- ployment today.” Referring to his recently- completed fact finding tour of the Maritimes, Broadbent said — “the despair those people face when one in four of their neigh- bours is without a job borders on the tragic. “Tt keeps me fighting mad and determined to keep pressing for action,’’ he said. fae pS RT SR RR) Absenteeism costs: Canada more than eight times as much in lost production as strikes and lockouts, according to a survey by The Financial Times. Sickness, tardiness, fatigue, and decisions by employees just to take a day off work cost almost 745 million hours in lost production in 1975, the Mon- treal business weekly said. That represents about one-half the production lost through unemployment. The estimate is based, in part, on a survey of 60 employ- ers — both public and private — which indicates that in- dustry loses an average 4 per cent of its production times to absenteeism. That loss is estimated at about 745 million hours, or 18.6. million weeks, based on an active labour force of about 9.3 million people “each theoretically capable of working 2,000 hours a year.” At $203.34 a week — the Statistics Canada average weekly wage when the survey was done — that would amount to about $3.8 billion in wages — or 25 per cent more than it costs to operate the unemployment insurance program. The newspaper also estimated that the time lost through absenteeism — 745 million hours — works out, at eight hours a day, to more than 93 million lost man-days. That is more than eight times the 11- million man-days lost to in- dustrial disputes.