The powers that be in Hamilton showed their contempt for
democracy and their scorn for the right to protest injustice when
they tried to put the lid on the demonstration organized Feb. 25
by the Wage Restraint and Unemployed Co-ordinating Committee
(WRAUCC). eee

Some 500 unemployed and trade union members were on the
Street protesting government wage controls on public sector
workers, the drive to force private sector workers to cut their
living standards by accepting concessions and rollbacks, and
demanding jobs or adequate incomes.

The plan was to time the protest with the lunch breaks of
federal and provincial public sector workers so that they could

everyone could show their solidarity with the tens of thousands
of unemployed in Hamilton.

But, public sector workers were not to exercise their demo-
cratic right to protest on that sunny Friday morning. The

crats running the federal building and pressed them with dire
warnings of the possibility of ‘trouble makers’’ in the crowd that
was expected to rally Feb. 25.

The bureaucrats got together and re-scheduled the lunch
breaks an hour later than normal to prevent the workers from
joining in the protest.

WRAUCC chairman Tom Davidson said the police tactic
wouldn't deter the committee from continuing its double-edged
fight against controls and for jobs or adequate income for the
unemployed.

“This was another in a long line of activities to come, to force
governments to come up with legitimate solutions to put more
purchasing power into peoples’ hands and end public sector wage
restraints,’’ he said.

* * *

And, in Ottawa at the CLC’s economic conference, March 1-2
to formulate a response to the planned depression we’re fighting
through, the unemployed raised their voices. Gareth Blythe, a
member of Toronto’s Union of Unemployed Workers, which had a
vocal delegation at the two-day meeting, called on the CLC and
senior labor bodies to adopt an action program that will unite the

jobless and the labor movement across Canada to stop the carn-
age against the unemployed, and to block any moves by govern-
ment and big business to use them against labor.

— Mike Phillips

TRIBUNE PHOTO —MIKE PHILLIPS

see the kind of support they had from private sector workers, and |

Hamilton-Wentworth Regional Police contacted the bureau- |

Special to the Tribune
REGINA — In its first appear-
ance before the Saskatchewan
Tory government, the provincial
federation of labor, Feb. 23 pres-
ented a brief demanding job crea-

_ tion through capital works pro-

jects.

The brief also expressed the
Saskatchewan Federation of
Labor’s opposition to the testing
of the Cruise missile in Canada,
and reminded the provincial
government of its responsibility
to defend Medicare. —

Retention of the Crow Rate,
introduction of school curriculum
properly reflecting labor’s aims
and asperations, and guarantees

’ of political freedom to public sec-

tor employees were also among
the SFL demands before the Tory
government of Premier Grant
Devine. |

The federation submitted a
separate brief demanding reform
of the Trade Union Act to

‘strengthen the ability of the trade |

union movement to organize and
negotiate for the province’s
workers.

The Tory government’s so-
called ‘‘war on inflation,’ the
federation’s economic pres-
entation charged, “amounts to a
planned depression with the

casualty lists of lost jobs and shat-

tered living standards throughout
Saskatchewan growing longer
each day’’.

The federation pointed out that
unemployment jumped by 15,000
over the last year, while the Con-
ference Board of Canada predicts
a puny 0.4% increase in goods
production in the province, one of
the smallest provincial forecasts.

The brief also criticized the
government’s attack on
publicly-owned enterprises in
Saskatchewan citing moves
aimed at breaking up the public
sector with actions directed
against the Potash Corporation,
Saskatchewan Telephone, the
Saskatchewan Government
Insurance Corp., and Saskatche-
wan Media..

It demanded a legislated reduc-
tion in work hours with no loss of
pay so that the workers can bene-
fit properly from the introduction

Create jobs, SFL demands : :

of new technology. The gover!
ment-imposed freeze on the ei
vincial minimum wage Wa”
tacked by the SFL, and it call
on the government to rals¢ ©
minimum wage to $6.50 af pe
with no age, or part-time ~

-ferentials allowed.

The brief called for strong
enforcement provisions af
Occupational Health and Sal
Regulations with new techn?”
gies including video display ©
minals and chemical-related P*
cesses in the workplace.

Among the capital works P*
jects demanded by labor to stim!
late job creation, were: immedi
commencement of the pipeline’
Diefenbaker Lake to prow
clean water for Moose Jaw ©
Regina; the construction of da
water diversions and W#
management schemes to 4¥
rationing and further water sho}
ages; a program of school, ho
tal and nursing home construe’
where they are needed; devele
ment of a Rehabilitation C
for injured workers, the hal
capped and the disabled;
other measures. :

«A

Closure threats replace bargaining

It has been common practice in negotiations for the

boss to put a package on the table and tell the union to
“take it or leave it.’’ Now a far more sinister practice
is appearing at the bargaining table. ‘‘Take it or we'll
leave”’ is a familiar theme being struck by companies
as unions labor to build up the fightback against 6 & 5
and the demand for concessions.
. Take the case of J.M. Schneider Inc., meat packers
in Winnipeg. It has been the practice in the packing
industry for many years to follow a pattern across
Canada set by the big four packers in negotiations
with the United Food and Commercial Workers
Union.

This year, however, Schneider balked and instead
presented its 117 workers with what the union dubbed
a zero-zero package. The essense of the proposal was
that the company would give a 50 cent increase in
exchange for 50 cents’ worth of the workers’ benefits.
The workers flatly turned down the proposal and set a
strike date. The company informed the workers that if
they struck, Schneider would consider shutting down
the Winnipeg operation for good.

The workers struck the plant in November and
after six weeks of bitter strike struggles during which
all kinds of company tricks, petitions, back-to-work
movements, further threats of shut downs etc., took
place, the workers were able to bring the company

from its zero-zero position to a two-year contract. It

provided for 65 cents in the first year and 50 cents in
the second, with no benefit concessions. This was
well behind the national packing settlement, which
included more than $1 an hour in each year of a
two-year agreement. By a narrow vote the workers
refused this last proposal and were greeted with an
announcement by the company that it would close its
operations permanently the next day.

Faced with this the workers met again and decided

f ..3| Labor in action
y William Stewart :

to return to work under the terms of the companys
offer.

We mention this instance here because this kind of
company tactic is becoming common in Canada. It
raises new problems and requires new approaches by
organized labor. Some of these answers are beginning
to appear.

The first and most obvious demand by labor is that
legislation be put in place forbidding companies from
raising threats of closure during negotiating time
frames. This would at least block the use of shut
downs. as a negotiating technique.

However, companies are demanding the opening of
contracts in mid-period with the demand for con-
cessions to avoid closure, on the grounds of financial
difficulties. This raises the need for legislation which
would force disclosure of company records where any
proposals to shut down are made. In some cases
companies openly admit that they are profitable but

the purpose of closure is to reopen elsewhere where

they can be even more profitable. As matters stand
now, neither the workers involved, the community,
nor the governments, have any Say over this matter. It
is at the discretion of the company. Clearly, legis-
lation is needed that placés constraints on companies
and protects workers’ job rights and the economic

needs of communities over the profitability of com-_

"panies.

Lastly, there is the case of companies whose re-
cords prove they are not profitable. But to this there
must be added the question ... Not profitable for —
whom? Take for example a company hiring 200 work-
ers earning on the average $15,000 a year. If the
company closes, taking into account income tax los-
ses to the federal and provincial governments, un-
employment insurance payments to the workers, los- —
ses to the economy through lost intra-industrial trans-
actions and purchasing power, the most minimum
costs to the public of the closure of the plant would be —
upwards from $10,000,000 a year.

In fact, therefore, the closure of plants transfers
losses from companies to the public purse. And yet
we are told by governments that we are powerless to
do anything about it. Powerless we are indeed so long —
as we accept the fallacious arguments of corporations
and governments that the responsibilities of govern-
ments begin where the corporations leave off. In fact
that formulation needs to be reversed; the respon-
sibilities of corporations begin where governments —
leave off. Even the latter formulation only makes
sense if we are talking about governments which are
tuned to the needs and wishes of working people, —
small business and farmers.

What is clear and becoming clearer is that unions
are being forced to move from straight economic is-
sues at the bargaining table to new political demands
to back up their economic demands. Collective bar-
gaining is taking on an ever increasing political
character. It requires careful definition and mass
mobilization by trade union locals, centrals and fed-
erations, for what is involved is more and more a
direct challenge to the rights of corporations vs. the
rights of people.

PACIFIC TRIBUNE—MARCH 11, 1883—Page 6