Ab “/ ’ S/ SY wes NAS Ky Q A Z % ¢ € v6 gg cB Y, oe ee r | As CCM strikers in Toronto head into their third week on the picketline in the area’s first ‘‘no con- cessions”’ strike, a background look at this struggle is useful. It unearths a number of questions about the company’s professed need to cut wages and benefits by at least $3.50 an hour to meet the com- petition. To begin with, while CCM cries'the blues about its Toronto bicycle operations, it seems not nearly so down-and-out in relation to its hockey and sports equipment plant in St. Jean, Quebec. But CCM management declines to link the two when it comes to tabulating profit. Perhaps because, on the whole, CCM is in fact reported to be making a profit. In an article about CCM and its new owner, the Globe and Mail of Oct. 17, 1981, had this to say: “It (the company) has more than doubled its sales over the past three years to the point where they surpassed $70-million for the year ended Sept. 30. It is making a profit now, a marked improve- ment from the past decade when it had several years of losses.”’ Corporate Picture That new owner is Maxwell Cummings and Sons Holdings Ltd. of Montreal, which took over the company in 1978 from Seaway-Multi Corporation Limited, formerly Levy Industries Ltd. At the time of the takeover, Maxwell Cummings was itself an importer and distributor of bicycles, which it mar- keted under the “‘Empire’’ label. And Maxwell Cummings was also reported to own land and real estate in Montreal and Alberta and interests in some Alberta junior oil and gas firms. Needless to say, Maxwell Cummings declines to bring any of these other corporate connections into the CCM picture when the profit column is added up. Prior to the change of ownership in 1978, CCM was reported to be in financial difficulty. If so, this was not the fault of CCM workers. It resulted from large-scale imports in the mid-70's and, as admitted by former CCM executives in press reports at the time, from unwise practises by CCM management itself. Management failed to recognize market trends in the early 70's, which resulted in overproduction, lax quality control and consequent losses. (The bicycle market in Canada peaked in 1974 with 1.3 million sold, but subsequently dropped to a current level of about 900,000, of which CCM sells a third.) Basing itself on this peak, CCM sought to cash in with the mass merchandisers. Met with imports there, and a declining overall market, it suffered losses. At the same time, CCM neglected and undercut its large network of independent dealers, until then always a key element in the company’s merchan- dising programs. It reversed previous policy of “*protecting’’ its small retailers, and sold the same models to mass merchandisers and independents alike, even though price-slashing by a few high- volume outfits meant hundreds of small retailers could not compete. It also suffered losses here. By mid-77, because of such mismanagement, CCM’s problems were said to have become criti- cal. In June of that year the Canadian Imperial PACIFIC TRIBUNE—JUNE 4, 1982—Page 6 Bank of Commerce threatened to call in loans of up to $8-million and put the company in receivership. The federal government stepped in, through its Enterprise Development Board, the banking arm of the Department of Industry, Trade and Com- merce. The EDB guaranteed CCM bank loans of $8.2-million, but with the provision that the then owners, Seaway-Multi, sell CCM. The sale to Maxwell Cummings was negotiated the following year. And again the government’s EDB played a role in negotiations and further loans. Canadian Business of May, 1981 quotes EDB chairman Douglas Kendall as saying: ““We provided for additional loans for expansion of the company — about $17-million in all.”’ And, as to CCM’s profitability or not, the same Canadian Business quotes EDB chairman Kendall on CCM: “It’s doing beautifully, so we guessed right on that one.” Thus, the question: Is CCM, all things consi- dered, really in that much trouble? As to what also may lie behind CCM’s current demands on its workers (apart from the generalized corporate attempt to roll unions and their members backward), there is a factor of some possible sig- nificance. : It is understood that Maxwell Cummings-CCM is currently engaged in negotiations to buy the Raleigh bicycle operation in Quebec, one of CCM’s main competitors. But how can such a “‘hard-pressed’’ company afford such a purchase? Or does it hope to finance this venture with money taken from CCM workers in Toronto? Or will the EDB again move into the picture? Lots of questions. Few answers. The union gives a firm answer to the second question. If the company does hope to use money taken from CCM workers in Toronto, the answer is a straight no. During contract- negotiations, the’ company made no overt threats to close the plant ‘‘unless.”’ Nevertheless, some of the ususal intimidating hints were dropped. Ina letter to all employees the company said it took its position *‘in order for the Weston plant to survive,”’ and ‘‘in order to con- tinue operations.”’ Whatever, a report in the Globe of March 16, 1978 seems worth noting. The report outlines the negotiations by Maxwell Cummings to buy CCM, including the role of the EDB, and contains this paragraph: “‘The government has been insistent that anyone acquiring CCM maintain both the company’s divi- sions — the bicycle plant and the hockey equip- ment division, which employs 450, in St. Jean d’Iberville, Que.” Interestingly, the Globe also reports that during the transfer-of-ownership negotiations, the government had held an option to buy CCM: Which raises other interesting questions, not to mention possibilities. The CCM strike is one well worth watching — and supporting. | Merger heads | print talks By STEVE WORRELL TORONTO — Delegates from the printing trades unions met here for the 38th Annual Con- ference of the Canadian Federation of Printing Trades Unions (CFPTU), May 8 and 9 to discuss the questions of merger, organization and au- tonomy. “ Numbering approximately 50, the delegates rep- resented various locals of the International Typo- — graphical Union (ITU), the Graphic Arts Inter- national Union (GAIU), the International Printing and Graphic Communications Union (IPGCU), - and The Newspaper Guild (TNG). ~ Opening the conference, CFPTU President Ken Magnus (GAIU, 28-B, Toronto), called on the delegates ‘‘to build one great graphic arts union ... to fight against the employer ... and to set aside jurisdictional squabbles.’’ Magnus stres- sed the need for the conference ‘‘to find ways that would lead to merger — for one graphic arts union. - “Tt must be the goal of all of us — for survival,”’ he said. One Union in the Industry Delegate after delegate rose to speak of the necessity of creating one union in the industry. As one delegate put it, ‘‘none of the themes here can be separated. They all hinge on the central point of merger. Without merger we are that much more isolated and weakened in the face of growing ‘government attacks on our living standards, and the offensive of the employers which is gaining strength through the process of corporate concen- — tration.” The conference was addressed by a panel which led off the discussion. It included Alan Heritage, Third International Vice-President of the ITU, Bill McLeman, Canadian Director, TNG, and Sam Hammond, Secretary-Treasurer of GAIU Local 542, Hamilton. Heritage began the discussion, talking about how, when merger was first discussed many years earlier, it had only been paid “‘lip service.’’ He | stressed that the success of the talks now under __ way (between the ITU and TNG) and the future’, development of the printing trades unions “‘is from ~ grass roots pressure.’’ He went on to say that “‘we have no choice but to organize front door to back door ... in order to gain a contract, because you need the muscle ... it is now a question of sur- vival.”’ McLeman added, ‘‘we cannot depend on the government, on legislation. We have to do it our- selves — to respond to corporate concentration by merger.” Necessity and Experience Hammond spoke of the way in which workers on the shop floor viewed these issues. ‘“‘They don’t respond philosophically, but in a more practical, basic manner. Workers are faced with these ques- tions every day, in the very real relationships of production, and will deal with the issues of merger or autonomy in a pragmatic manner, out of neces- sity and experience.”’ A resolution on “‘Unity and Autonomy”’ which was unanimously adopted called for ‘‘the auton- omy necessary to deal specifically with Canadian problems while simultaneously affirming a’ strong policy of unity and fraternity as members of the international unions established in the graphic arts industry.’’ It noted that while conditions in Canada are a result of unique historical evolution of the Canadian people, that should ‘‘not in any way pre- clude our traditional unity with American ‘workers.”’ A resolution on corporate concentration called on the government to “immediately enact legisla- tion based on the Kent Royal Commission for con- trol of newspapers and the media.’’ Other resolu- tions dealt with such issues as UIC, pensions, and merger. - __ The conference concluded with the election of its Executive Officers for the coming year. Ken Magnus was re-elected President of the Federa- tion. Also re-elected were Secretary-Treasurer Jim Buller (ITU-91, Toronto) and Vice-President Tony Verburne (GAIU-157, London). Eight otherexecu- — tive members were elected representing the various sections of the trade and regions that were rep- resented at the conference. Steve Worrell is a member of the Toronto Typo- graphical Union (ITU Local 9] De