U.S. IMPERIALISM — PAST & PRESENT

CAIRO
DAMASCUS

| Facts prove forestry giants

can afford big wage boosts

At the recent International
Woodworkers of America (IWA)
convention in Vancouver an
economic report was circulated to
delegates which carried some very
illuminating facts of interest to
B.C. woodworkers, as well as the
public in general.

One of these concerns
technological change in the forest
industry. The report says:

“Much of the increased lumber
output in the U.S. and Canada is
the direct result of improved
technology and new automated
equipment being introduced in the
woods and: in sawmills. The in-
novations are well known by those
in the industry — portable steel
spars, remote control yarders,
hydraulic grapple hooks and bigger
and better skidders and loaders.
We see sawmills introducing new
automatic lumber sorting systems.
that replace every worker on the
green chain...

Homeowners face $15 tax boost
Under NDP gov't transit plan

Homeowners in Greater
ancouver may be faced witha
two mill increase— somewhere
In the neighborhood of $15— in
heir taxes if the provincial gov-
€rhment continues. in its
reluctance to maintain its stated
Program for upgrading. and
peccing a public transit system
or the metro area.
eeting with representatives
Re the Greater Vancouver
ae 8lonal District last week,
Unicipal affairs minister Jim
ener Said that the provincial
Peace was prepared to
vane “% to costof public
ARE but that the district
aS have to be prepared to
Resdize the other 50%. The
cae for the present transit
oe €m runs around $2.5 million
4 year and the district sub-
ante necessitate a two
.. !MCrease in the property tax
€ provincial government
ts on the present scheme.
€veral mayors who met with

of

S

insis

ori a
fee mer voiced opposition to
~~ Provinci

finan al government

Cing scheme pointing out
aced Preowners are already
5 a excessive taxation.
Schem SO pointed out that the
itwitln, 1S shortsighted because
i. Ot allow for the financing
ee eal rapid transit
taxpa — the burden on the
yer would be worse still.
the ~ ¢VRD commented that
ee acial government
ram °vincial government pro-
ed” fro 1s basically unchang-
ago, Ba that laid downa year
Cause it Ich was rejected be-
Vious oa worse than the pre-
Would Rered scheme, which
Mlesent acc eed all of the
“the ne eficitand sharedonly
S Tease in the deficit ona
aSIS with the district.

av 2
propeseTo¥incial government
transi : or financing a public
Year ang om as outlined last
er, ig again this year by Lori-
: aradicaldeparture from

© st
aXation st P program on
* Public transit. the financing of

In the official program issued
by the NDP in September 1972,
the party reiterated its long-
standing principle on taxation,
stating that ‘‘only services to
property will be paid from taxes
on property.’ At the same time,
the program pledged the govern-
ment to ‘‘develop anextensive
public transit system in major
cities with the provincial govern-
ment assuming the major finan-
cial responsibility.”

The present proposal would
have the effect of taxing home-
owners for a service which is
available to more than just home-
owners and would not provide a
basis for improving and up-
grading the transit system.

In giving leadership to a cam-
paign for upgraded public
transit and the start on arapid
transit system, over the past two
years. the Committee of
Progressive Electors and the
Citizens Committee for Public
Transit outlined several pro-
posals for financing, none of

RENEWED YOUR
SUB YET?

which have been’considered by
the government despite the
agreement in principle stated in
the NDP program.

COPE proposedanimmediate
start on the basis for a rapid
transit system based on equal
contributions from each senior
government totalling 75% of the
total cost with the remaining
25% to be assumed by the dis-
trict with the money to be rais-

ed by land assembly along tran--

sit routes. The land would be
assembled by the district and’
developed at a profit in order to
provide funds for capital expen-
diture and operating costs.

The program was drafted in
1971 but its urgency has
increased.

“An example of the high priority
placed on new technology by Cana-
dian wood products manufacturers
is found in the amount of money
being invested in new equipment.
In 1971 Canadian employers spent
$1,370 for each employee in the in-
dustry for new machinery and
equipment. British Columbia
employers were even ahead of this
pace at $1,795 per employee.”’

The report points out that in
1968, only three years earlier, the
industry was investing only half as
much in technological changes. It
concludes: ‘‘This kind of massive
investment in mechanization will
drastically change the face of the
lumber industry in the years
ahead.”

The section dealing with cor-
poration profits reveals some in-
teresting facts. It points out that
net profits reported by the major
forest companies do not give a full
and adequate picture of the vast
profits being made both in the U.S.
and by B.C. companies.

It points out that one of the ma-
jor means by which profits are con-
cealed is through government tax
legislation which enables cor-
porations to set aside large
amounts as ‘‘depreciation
allowances” on which taxes are not
paid. In most cases the ‘‘deprecia-
tion allowance” is much larger
than the actual profits reported.

Here are some examples of B.C.
companies taken from a chart in
the IWA’s report for the year 1972.

MacMillan Bloedel reported net
profits in 1972 of $35,022,000. In
that same year it put aside as
“depreciation allowances” the sum
of $56,244,000. (Much of this money
is being used by MB to buy up
foreign companies, such as those
recently announced in the press.)

B.C. Forest Products reported
net profits of $10,823,000, but in
that same year (1972) it put aside
$36,245,000 in ‘‘depreciation
allowances.”

Weldwood of Canada said it
made $7,471,000 in net profits in
1972, but its ‘‘depreciation

allowances’ for that year were
$11,150,000. Crown Zellerbach,
who reported net profits of $11,-
940,000 put aside $13,667,000 in
“depreciation allowances.”’

Other large companies operating
both in Canada and the U‘S.,
Weyerhaeuser, Scott Paper Ltd.,
etc., reported a similar picture.

Since these companies do not
pay taxes on these “depreciation
allowances”’ they actually make a
much larger profit but are able to
hide it.

Even where this camouflage to
cover up exorbitant profits is not
included, profits reported for the
first six months of 1973 by the ma-
jor companies are very high. The
IWA report says;

“The conglomerate corporations
with large-scale operations in the
paper industry — Crown Zeller-
bach, International Paper,
Kimberly-Clark, St. Regis and
Scott Paper — did exceptionally
well. Their average increase in net
profits was 76.8 percent.”

Analysing the net profits of B.C.
companies for the first six months
of 1973, the report says that B.C.
Forest Products showed a jump of
180.9 percent. MacMillan Bloedel’s
net profits for the first half of the
year — $50,800,000 — constituted a
new record, MB surpassed the
previous record year of 1969 by
$8% million.

The report also:shows that the
Federal government’s recent tax
exemption for Canadian cor-
porations on taxes, which were os-
tensibly to help promote the
economy and fight unemployment,
boosted MB’s profits in the first six
months of 1973 by $3,800,000.

As woodworkers in B.C. ap-
proach the 1974 spring negotiations
for a new contract they should bear
in mind the facts revealed by the
economic report to the IWA Inter-
national convention. This report
proves beyond a shadow of doubt
that the forest companies can af-
ford very substantial increases for
woodworkers. in every part of the
industry.

Labor code

The B.C. Division of the Cana-
dian Union of Public Employees
(CUPE) has expressed strong dis-
agreement with its national presi-
dent, Stanley Little, on B.C.’s new
labor code. ae

Drawing attention to Little’s
statement in the press that the
proposed labor code is “potentially
the best labor legislation in
Canada,” and that it is “certainly
progressive, if not perfect,” Harry
Greene, president of the B.C. Divi-
sion, said in a press statement:

“The B.C. Division of CUPE has
supported the B.C. Federation of
Labor in its struggle over the years
to rid the province of restrictive
labor legislation. We, like most
other B.C. unions worked for a
change of government in hopes of
accomplishing that objective and in
hopes of electing the kind of
government which would bring in
progressive legislation in many
other fields as well as in the field of
industrial relations.

“Like other affiliates of the BC.
Federation, we are pleased with
much of the legislation introduced
by the New Democratic govern-

ment since the last election, but we

‘bitter disappointment’

are extremely disappointed with
the new labor code. .

“We note that Brother Little has
also been quoted as conceding that
affiliated locals of CUPE have the
constitutional right to oppose the
legislation. The B.C. Division of
CUPE supports the B.C. Federa-
tion of Labor position.

“We are opposed to. those
provisions in the proposed legisla-
tion which undercut the union shop
clauses in union agreements; we
are opposed to.compulsory arbitra-
tion which is provided for in the
case of first agreements; we are op-
posed to the insulting provision for

a labor ombudsman while other
sections of a society have none; we
are opposed to the continued and
increased restrictions on picketing;
we are opposed to the accredita-
tion clause particularly as it applies
to public authorities; and we are
opposed to the excessive powers of
the Labor Relations Board and the
Special Officers provided for in the
legislation.

“Far from being ‘near perfect,’
and bearing in: mind it does have
some positive features, it is in fact
very bad, very restrictive legisla-
tion and a bitter disappointment to
our membership in B.C.”

OKANAGAN OLD-TIMERS’ BANQUET

HONORING:

Henry Codd, Charlie Johnson,

Tom Greer, N. Klim Sr., John

Klim, Pete Pakota, Sam Senko,

Bill Slemko, Mr. & Mrs. Yakemchuk.

Saturday, November 3 — 6 p.m.

ELKS HALL — VERNON
Entertainment «SPEAKERS *Hot Supper

NIGEL MORGAN & MAURICE RUSH

oe eH ($3.00)

Auspices: Okanagan Regional Committee — C.P.C.

PACIFIC TRIBUNE—FRIDAY, OCTOBER 19, 1973—PAGE 3