Bf BEBE

Alberta labor pledges total war

_ against anti-union legislation

EDMONTON — Public angeris boiling, over the
Ory government’s’ proposed labor law amend-
Ments, Bill 44, which even the provincial Liberal
y leader describes as approaching fascism.
Controversy swirls around the government's
railroading of the bill through the legislature with a
Minimum of public input. Of the 56 Alberta organi-
Zations who have requested to appear before the
tanding Committee of the Provincial Assembly on

‘ublic Affairs, the government has excluded some -

M presenting their briefs, including the
Communist Party — Alberta.
_ Other groups denied the right to brief the stand-
‘8 committee include unemployed groups,
Women’s organizations, the Alberta Civil Liberties

‘SSOciation, and even the Bar Association.

At an April 26 rallyagainst Bill 44, Dave Werlin,
President of the 100,000-member Alberta Federa-
ton of Labor, (AFL) told Premier Peter Lough-
£ed's Tory government that, “‘it is the intent of this
‘abor movement to defy Bill 44, and we will support
and assist any union that does (defy the bill), if they
are harassed or persecuted as a result.”’

The government brought Bill 44 down, April 11
and wiped out the strike rights of Alberta’s nurses
and hospital workers. It sets up a new system of
Compulsory arbitration which compels arbitrators
t, Comply with government wage control guide-
Ines and other factors in making their awards.
The Communists were the Tories’ first target in

Teecting provincial organizations from airing their

°Pinions on Bill 44 before the standing committee.
: lle it was among the 20 or so organizations

tefused access to the standing committee, the
80Vernment made a point of communicating with

‘the Canadian Association of Small Business, invit-

‘ing them to submit a brief.

Ina sharply-worded statement, April 19, Alberta

party organizer, David Wallis pledged the com-
munists ‘‘will not be muzzled at a time when the
Government of Alberta is bringing in the most
reactionary labor legislation in Canada.

‘This legislation’, Wallis added, “‘is designed to
place trade unions under government domination
and ultimately to decertify them. The Communist
Party will not sit back and let this Tory government
attack the democratic right of workers to belongto,
organize and run their own unions.”

Wallis said the bill was nothing short of imposing
wage controls on thousands of public sector work-
ers because it ties settlements to the government’s
fiscal policies.

“Tt is interesting to note how history repeats
itself’, Wallis observed. ‘‘Now, as in the past,
when governments have tried to break the backs of
the trade unions, they first try to silence or under-
mine the role of the communists.”

In addition to demanding Bill 44 be scrapped, the
party challenged the Tories to introduce alter-
native economic policies *‘that will guarantee a fair
deal for working people-and créate jobs”’ for the
province’s 146,000 unemployed.

The communists called for: repeal of the restric-
tive Public Service Employees Relations Act; re-
forms in the province’s labor code to prevent
government interference in collective bargaining
and ease the organization of the unorganized,
introduction of a legislated 32-hour work week at
40 hours pay; and a significant increase in the
minimum wage.

The AEL, in its brief to the standing committee,
called for the resignation of Alberta Labor Minister
Les Young, saying that, “he is a fish out of water in
the labor portfolio,’ and that, *‘there is no moral
reason for this government to bring in this kind of

_ legislation.”

Inglis strikers solid

TORONTO — “‘The longer we’re on strike the more money it
will take to settle’’, Inglis strike leader Mike Hersh said April 28
as members of Steelworkers Locals 2900 and 4487 wrapped up
their third week on the bricks.

The two primary issues in the strike, Hersh said are job sec-
urity and resistance to concessions.

The concessions demanded by the company include taking
away the workers’ supplementary unemployment benefits
(SUB), and putting a cap on the.cost of living adjustment,
(COLA). Inglis also is seeking language changes in the contract
that would have the affect of jeopardizing workers’ seniority on
temporary transfers.

Job security is a key item because of Inglis’ planned removal of
the dryer production line from Toronto to Cambridge, Ontario at
acost of 250 jobs. The union is seeking decent pension increases
to make it worthwhile for some 90 workers, in the 60-65 age
bracket, to retire early. :

. “Of course, we’re talking about voluntary retirement,’’ Hersh
said, ‘‘but if they gave the workers enough for decent pensions,
that’s about 90 jobs that could be saved.” 3

The union is trying to save as many jobs as it can, but big-busi-
ness governments in Queen’s Park and Ottawa won't budge from
economic policies that fatten corporate profits while fueling un-
employment. Inglis workers are particularly incensed over the
$4-million both government levels have showered on the
company.

‘‘Our tax money winds up being used in rationalizing Inglis’
production so we can lose our jobs’’, the Local 2900 president
said.

The 700 strikers, including production and maintenance
workers in Local 2900, and office workers in Local 4487, went on

' strike April 7. ‘‘Moralé is very good, the workers are solid’,
Hersh said. :

Aside from the two primary issues, wages are also a hot item
and the unions are determined not to go back until the company
comes up with an acceptable increment for the skilled trades and
significant up front money for the rest of the workers.

&

Possible changes to the CI_C’s constitution.

Following a recent column in the Tribune, a reader

asked me whether we weren't over-reacting to the : : 2 -
constitutional overhaul being mooted by the Cana- l a hes Labor in actio
dian Labor Congress. Presently there is a Commis- o *

sion traversing the country hearing submissions on » ag

Our particular reaction was to the proposal to
change the convention voting procedures to allow any

a

ey |

» | William Stewart
ones A! ;

Substance was given to this contention a couple of

- Beware of wolves insheep’s clothing.

ever, such a comparison would ignore the basic dif-
ference in the unions in Europe and here. In the case
of Britain, for example the trade unions are largely
based on a powerful shop-steward movement and
mass rank and file participation. This is more or less
true in most European countries.

In Canada, unfortunately most unions are led by a
relatively small group of officers, and in many cases
by full-time staffers. For example, one of the largest

One delegate present from a local union to vote the full
Strength of that union based on its per capita member-
Ship.

The question posed by our reader was: This prop-
Osal is certainly a far cry from the proposal first put
forward by the CLC in 1976 which called for the
institution of bloc-voting on the request of one-third of

~ the voting delegates to any convention. In such a vote
the head of each union would vote on behalf of the
entire per capita membership of the union.

Further, all resolutions to the convention would
have to be cleared through the head office (U.S. in the
case of international unions) and all delegate selection
would be at the discretion of the head office of the

“union. This proposal was defeated and in 1978 was
scaled down to concentrate on the bloc-voting prop-
osal and leaving out the authority of head offices.to
Police resolutions and select delegates.

When this was defeated the 1980 convention was
faced with the same proposal now being floated by the
CLC, to allow any one delegate to a convention from
alocal to vote the entire strength of the local. This was
defeated by the 1980 convention in spite ofassurances
by the leadership that it did not constitute bloc-voting.
The membership thought otherwise.

Slim Edge

Now to the question of our friend. The debate at the
1980 convention found the opponents of the local
union bloc-voting scheme arguing that it was just the
slim edge of the wedge. It’s true it was a far cry from
the original proposal. So far, its opponents observed,
that it raised the question — Why bother at all?

The answer they concluded was that it was de-
signed to change the voting strength of the CEC
convention by a sufficient margin to enable the
leadership to come back to their 1976 proposals for
full bloc voting and head office control at a later
convention.

local unions in Canada, Local 222 of the UAW more
often than not fails to get a quorum (50 people out of
more than 12,000 membership) at meetings.

Leadership’s What’s Needed

For these reasons the labor councils, provincial
federations of Labor and CLC conventions, alongside
the unions’ own conventions, provide a major oppor-
tunity for the rank and file to influence the policy of
the movement. This is even more pronounced in the
case of international unions whose conventions give
little possibility for the relatively small Canadian
complement to do much more than have a good time.

The character of the Canadian Labor Congress, its
periodicity, and the consequent character of provin-
cial federations is a great asset for the trade union and
entire labor movement in Canada. Its democratic rank
and file character has proven time and time again to be
a major weapon in the economic and political struggle
against the governments and monopoly. It has also
continued to be one of the most effective means of
checking up on the leadership of the labor movement
and ensuring the proper direction for workers’ strug-
gles.

As we pointed out to our reader, constitutional
discussions are much like arguing with a lawyer —
you seldom win, unless you’re a lawyer yourself.
There is a reason why most people-who want a
capitalist political career go into law. This is because
law prepares one for politics. Capitalist politics is the
art of hiding what you really mean and continuing to
win the support of those you are shafting.

The best way for the working people at this time to
win the constitutional debate and preserve the rank
and file character of the CLC is to argue that the
constitution has served the labor movement well and
¢an continue to do so in the future. What we need is
better leadership, not constitutional change.

weeks ago when the Ontario Director of the CLC
Ralph Ortleib appeared before the Brampton Labor
Council to argue in favor of changes to the CLC .
constitution and urging the Labor Council to support
the views he put forward. :

And what were those views?

Summarized, they were — the CLC is getting too
large — there are very few cities with sufficient
accommodation for the convention. Furthermore if.
the unions sent their full complement of delegates
there would be close to 7,000 delegates who could not
assemble anywhere. Delegate representation discrim-
inated against unions with large locals, such as the
United Automobile Workers, in favor of unions with
many scattered small locals. There are too many
resolutions before the convention and no time to dis-
cuss them...

Same Old Song

The arguments were precisely the same arguments
advanced by the CLC in 1976 to support its proposed
amendments at that time. If Mr. Ortleib represents the
CLC, and we must assume by his position that he
does, it gives strong support to those who argue that,
for the CLC leadership, nothing has changed in their

. thinking since 1976 except their tactical approach to
getting to the same objective. That objective is to end
the rank and file character of the CLC and change it
into the same kind of ‘‘top-dog’’ Congress as the
AFL-CIO or European congresses, which they quoted
in support of their 1976 scheme.

The example of the AFL-CIO is not likely to im-
press many Canadians but some might be misled by
the examples of the British Trades Union Congress
and many of our European counterparts, where a high
level of militancy, democracy and class struggle poli-
tics prevail.

As we noted in the aforementioned column, how-

e