BRITISH COLUMBIA CIP fightback co-chair Sue Harris and MHR official Ken Hamilton during protest against program cuts Mar. 1. Demo demands CIP funds Demonstrators from the CIP Fight- back organization hit Ministry of Human Resources cuts to a community program and demanded to meet with Human Resources Minister Grace McCarthy Mar. 1. McCarthy failed to show for a special meeting of MHR officials at the minis- try’s regional offices on 1675 West 10th Ave. in Vancouver, but the Downtown Eastside residents involved later con- fronted the minister in her nearby consti- tuency office. The group has been fighting the elimi- nation of the CIP — the Community Involvement Program — since Septem- ber 1983 in a series of court battles that have gained successes for the handi- capped volunteer workers who benefited from the program. The CIP paid an extra $50 monthly to some 2,500 B.C. welfare recipients who performed a variety of services for com- munity organizations and housing pro- jects, all of whom were cut off during the deluge of cutbacks in the summer and fall of 1983. The fight against those cuts has centred around Denis Jensen, currently a volunteer worker with the Downtown Eastside Residents Association, who earned his CIP payment by checking daily on the elderly and infirm residents of MacLean Park seniors residence. His five-year service was credited with saving 26 lives. With the aid of CIP Fightback, a z Oo — fT uw z < am O | 2) 5 io AO ax AO. Ww T= 2 a ia = Solidarity Coalition member, Jensen won the right to appeal his cutoff, on the | grounds the ministry’s action violated parts of provincial legislation, in a B.C. Supreme Court fight one year ago. The ministry subsequently overturned that victory in an appeal. But last month, Jensen again won the right of appeal in a B.C. Court of Appeals decision, and reiterated his long-standing claim with MHR. More than three weeks later, the ministry has yet to act. Some 200 appeals, with the assistance of DERA and CIP Fightback, have been launched, but Fightback co-chair Sue Harris argues that all 2,500 former CIP recipients are eligible to appeal. Harris said many more former recip- ients would be appealing their cut-offs had it not been for the eroneous informa- tion from MHR supervisors that appeals were disallowed. Harris told reporters the group was “ripped off’ by McCarthy’s no-show at the Mar. | meeting with MHR officials. She sent deputy minister John Noble in her place, but Noble refused to come to the door to talk to the demonstrators. MHR_ administrative officer Bill Hamilton told Harris and Jensen he had “no intention of disrupting the meeting” to bring Noble outside, but that he would “relay the message”’ to the deputy. “When we call up the minister in Vic- toria we don’t get a straight answer,” said Harris. “It looks likely we’ll be going back to court.” Toronto bylaw eyed 1 as aldermen ponde fair wages program Vancouver city aldermen are considering ™ a policy that will require all construction contractors who take on city work to pay their employees a union-scale wage. The move would narrow the gap between wages in the non-union sector of construc- tion work, a gap estimated to be as muchas - $7 an hour, according to a study by the Construction Labor Relations Association and a report by city staff. The policy, to be debated in a meeting of city council’s finance and administration committee Mar. 14, has the support of the four aldermen of the Committee of Pro- gressive Electors. Vancouver city council currently has a policy of accepting the lowest bid, within the constraints of quality and with special preference for B.C. firms. But it also has a limited fair wages policy incorporated into the Vancouver Charter. The issue has come to a head because of several recent developments stemming from a growing incursion by non-union contrac- tors into city projects. Their ability to pay much lower wages — which, union leaders charge, enable them to pocket greater prof- its at their workers’ expense — allows them to underbid their unionized rivals. ~ Over the objections of the COPE alder- men, non-union firms have been granted the Sun Yat Sen gardens project in China- town and a project building an extension to the Dunbar Community Centre recently. Concern about the wages paid non-union laborers and tradesmen prompted council last November to request city staff prepare a report on how the city can ensure decent rates of pay for workers on city projects. Section 74 of the charter calls, in cases where jobs the city workforce itself might perform are opened to tender, for “‘not less than the wages or remuneration generally accepted as current at the time.” “This clause is, at best, vague, and many interpretations could be drawn,” city staff admit in a lengthy report to council outlin- East enders also deserve grant aid Since this is budget time at city hall, city council has started grappling with the issue of annual civic grants to community service organizations. These groups provide a wide range of services to citizens in the field of education, health, human rights and social services. last year community service grants from the city amounted to $1.8 million for 126 groups. These groups, in turn, provided services to over 365,000 people. The city’s grants enable these groups to employ 100 full time staff, but the wages were not high; some received only $12,000 a year. These groups also had the invalua- ble help of more than 10,000 volunteer workers. This year all the groups which received grants last year, plus some new ones, have again applied. They are in real financial difficulties. On the one hand, the number of people requiring these services is growing; on the other hand, grants by the provincial government to these groups are being steadily reduced. The provincial government seems not at all concerned about its ability to meet an Expo 86 deficit of over $300 million; but it can’t afford a few hundred thousand dol- lars for these community groups. Because the services provided by these groups are absolutely essential to our citi- zens, these grants not only have to be “continued, they must be increased to reflect steadily rising costs. We took this matter up at a joint meet- ing of the community services and finance and administration committees, where the Committee of Progressive Electors and Harcourt’s independents hold a majority. The meeting voted to increase community services grants by 20 per cent over the 1984 Harry Rankin figure. This motion will be presented to the next meeting of city council where a final decision will be made. We can take it for granted that the right wing aldermen on council will oppose this increase in grants for community services — verbally at least, if not also in voting. We had a clear indication of that at the Feb. 26 council meeting when the request came up for a $7,500 grant to Britannia Centre. They needed this amount to hire a consultant to design an expansion and modernization of the swimming pool area. Ald. Marguerite Ford, the apologist for the Socred government on council, voted against it as did Ald. George Puil, both of them on the spurious claim that they were defending the taxpayer. COPE aldermen pointed out that the thousands of people who use the Britannia Centre are also taxpayers and that the centre and an expanded pool are a neces- sity for this area. In my remarks I drew attention to the fact that if it is correct for council to grant the art gallery and the museum almost a million dollars each annually, and another $1% million for other cultural activities — all of which COPE supported — then it was only fair that working people in the east end of the city also be given some consideration for their needs. A well- serviced community centre in the east end means just as much to someone living there as an art gallery or symphony con- cert means to its patrons. The motion by Ald. Libby Davies to approve the $7,500 grant passed, thanks to the labor-backed majority on council. We can expect that the recommendation for a 20 per-cent increase in community service grants will pass for the same reason. cost projects. _ 2 e PACIFIC TRIBUNE, MARCH 6, 1985 ing the various options for establishing fa it wage guidelines. Few Canadian municipalities have a fall wage policy, and of the eight cities found by a Vancouver city survey last year, only tw4) had policies which were.enforced. One 0) the cities, Toronto, has a policy city stall have submitted to council for considera tion. Toronto’s fair wage policies were initially established in 1893 and again in a 191] bylaw which was amended in 1971 and 1980. It bases fair wages on going union rates for wages plus the cash equivalent 0) union benefits such as*dental and pensiol plans and vacations. Toronto’s council examines wage rates yearly and sends copies of its adopted wage schedule to every contractor that regularly deals with the city. All contractors bidding on city projects are told they must adhere to this schedule, and each tender document contains a statement entitled “Workers Rights.” The Toronto bylaw’s 1980 Aperaae established a manager of the fair wage department who with field investigators routinely inspects work sites, interviews workers and conducts payroll audits. An attractive feature of the bylaw is that it goes beyond construction contracts. The rate applies to every purchase the city makes, and therefore covers service indus- tries as well. The bylaw has the support of Toronto's s building trades unions. i In their report Vancouver city staff tall out several options for a fair wage scheme, ranging from maintaining the status quo to one modelled on the Toronto bylaw. A middle option would entail passage of a fail wage clause in the charter without establish- ing wage schedules. But the staff report notes the disadvantages of tht scheme. “A fair wage clause in isolation. . might at best provide the ability to get wage information from a contractor and control flagrant abuses,” the report states. : An “enforceable” program, on the othet hand, “sets a wage standard that contrac- tors can use in their bidding, avoiding. tend- ering problems that may arise in today’s” climate. ..reduces the incentive for a con- tractor to engage in questionable cost cutting on labor in a highly competitive bidding climate.” : On the negative side, according to the staff, the clause may incur higher project costs, administrative costs (although there iS" the possibility the report states, that existing city staff can handle the workload) and may run into opposition from the province of - federal agencies such as the Canada Mort- gage and Housing Corporation, or share The report also advises on a number off wage options, including the federal fait wage rate (currently applied at Expo 86, where provincial edict has allowed several | non-union firms contracts), construction — union rate or a rate based on current city wages. The staff also make several recom- mendations concerning benefits. According to the CLRA’s 1983 study, non-union laborers earned about $10.12 per hour. By comparison, city staff note, union-_ ized laborers earned, between May 1983 and April 1985, a base rate of $17.25, or 2 composite rate (including benefits) of $21.02 per hour. For carpenters, the non-_ union rate the CLRA found was $15.26 in 1983, contrasted with a May 1983-April 1985 base rate of $18.43, or $22.67 witht benefits.