oe BS OES

_ UFAWU protest forces action from UIC |

One hundred fishermen jamm- <
ed into the regional Unemploy- Ss
ment Insurance Commission of-
fices won a commitment from
regional UI director Alan
Cocksedge to review cases of
fishermen who were unfairly z
disentitled and to take grievances = |
over restrictive UI - regulations oF
directly to employment minister S

Lloyd Axworthy.

The United Fishermen and
Allied Workers’ Union took the
fishermen’s lobby to the regional
UI offices Feb. 20 demanding im-
mediate action on the cases hun-
dreds of fishermen and
shoreworkers who are unable to
obtain UI benefits because of ar-
bitrary rulings and discriminatory
entrance requirements. ~

Hundreds more have been
disentitled this year because of
new closures on fishing last year
— themselves the result of federal
government policies.

Under present UI regulations,
fishermen must have worked 20

| weeks in 1980 in order to qualify
for benefits. If they were eligible
for benefits last year, that require-
ment is reduced to 14 weeks.

But because of the closures on

\ the Fraser, many fishermen

=

Last Dec. 5, 6 and 7 the central
committee of the Communist Par-
ty of Canada met in Toronto and
adopted a policy statement entitled
New Trends in the Trade Union
Movement.

A quotation from that statement
should help to place the current sit-
uation in B.C. in proper perspect-
Ive:
“In response to mounting diffi-
culties and under pressure from the
rank and file, the trade union
movement in Canada has just be-
gun to move in the direction of
more effective struggle against
monopoly and to the elaboration
of policies, at different levels, seek-
ing a way out of the crisis for the
workers. Given effective leadership
and guidance around sound poli-
cies this process can be further
strengthened as the effects of the
“crisis negatively manifest them-
selves on the wages and living
standards of the workers.

“While the process of fight back
and movement in the direction of
class-based policies are by no
means fully elaborated or uniform,
they are nonetheless the emerging
trend and given proper leadership,
can become the main trend in the
trade union movement.”

It is now obvious that on the em-
ployer’s side, the current round of
strikes and lockouts in B.C. has
been carefully orchestrated by the
Employers’ Council of B.C. How-
ever, there seems to be a division in
the ranks of big business (for whom
the Council speaks) in respect to the
negotiating tactics of the B.C. Tele-
phone Company.

This is the third, consecutive set
of B.C. Tel contract negotiations
which required the services of a
federal conciliation commissioner.
On every occasion, the Telecom-
munication Workers’ Union ac-
cepted the conciliator’s recom-
mendation and the U.S.-owned.
B.C. Telephone Company rejected
them.

To make matters worse, the
company last week backed away
from a tentative agreement negoti-
ated with the help of the senior

- mediator from the federal depart-

|
2
Oo;
xr
a.

w
=

TRIBU

Alan Cocksedge as fishermen and shoreworkers jam meeting

weren’t able to qualify. ‘‘Most of
the gillnetters only got nine weeks
fishing because of the fisheries’
closures,’’ Dennis Brown,
UFAWU Fraser Valley
organizer, told the commission.
Shoreworkers have faced
similar barriers because of the
depressed state of the industry
and the restrictive UI re-
quirements that they work at least
20 hours a week for 20 weeks.
With smaller catches coming in
to shore plants, few workers have
been able to get in sufficien
hours. :

ment of labor. It took the position
that it could not implement the pro-
posed three-year agreement unless
it received another rate increase
from the Canadian Radio-televi-
sion and Telecommunications
Commission. This demand came
on the heels of a recent rate increase
of 12.5 percent granted to the com-
pany. In addition, B.C. Tel earn-
ings for 1980 rose by $10 million, as
compared with 1979.

The lead editorial in the Vancou-

Labor
Comment

Jack Phillips

ver Province, .Feb.- 19 labelled the
B.C. Tel demand ‘‘quite preposter-
ous.”’ In my dictionary, preposter-
ous means contrary to common
sense.

The Province went on to say:
“B.C. Tel is in effect, asking the
CRTC to do its negotiating. Surely
saner heads within the company
recognize that no such commit-
ment could be given by the CRTC.
The rational approach would. be
for the company to accept the deal,
absorb the costs and, if they place
an undue burden on its operations,
then it can apply to the CRTC for
the means of meeting the costs.’’

In this situation, the B.C. Tele-
communication Workers’ Union
and the B.C. Federation of Labor
should give serious consideration
to raising to new prominence the
demand to nationalize B.C. Tel. If
the record of this American com-
pany in B.C. proves anything, it
proves that it is out to destroy the
effectiveness of the union — if not
to destroy the union itself.

The-publicly-owned telephone
systems in Alberta, Saskatchewan
and Manitoba provide excellent
precedents for a takeover in B.C.

The trade union movement, the
NDP, consumer groups and the

PACIFIC TRIBUNE--FEB. 27, 1981—Page 12

Compounding the problem is a
common employer tactic of call-
ing shoreworkers in for only 19
hours a week in order to avoid
paying the employer’s share of UI
premiums.

In addition to the restrictive
regulations, both fishermen and
shoreworkers have faced ar-
bitrary rulings at UI offices in-
cluding disentitlement for failing
to state that they will take a job
anywhere. Often the problem is
the result of language difficulties.

Vancouver’ waterfront
organizer John Radosevic told

Communist Party should all step
up the demand to nationalize this
anti-labor company. Aside from
the demonstrated advantages of
public ownership, the consistent
anti-labor position of this company
has created a wide basis of support
for the demand to nationalize.

The Employers’ Council of B.C.
has taken a long, hard look at the
B.C. Tel strike and the strike of
10,000 municipal. workers in the
Lower Mainland.

A feature article in the Financial
Post Feb. 21 made these projec-
tions:

**As far as the province’s em-
ployer councils are concerned, the
sooner these groups settle, the bet-
ter. That would put at least some
distance between a potentially high
pact and their own sets of negotia-
tions.

“This is part of the reason why
employer council: executives have
been applying strong pressure on
B.C. Tel chairman Gordon Mac-
Farlane to settle with his striking
employees.”’

That was written before B.C. Tel
backed away from the tentative set-
tlement reached under the chair-
manship. of William Kelly, senior
mediator for the federal depart-
ment of labor, which the union is
prepared to accept.

The apparent division within the
ranks of big business is based on
tactics and not principle. Ina situa-
tion like this, the demand for na-
tionalization of the U.S.-owned
company is a very logical one. If
pressed hard, it would facilitate a
settlement for the Telecommunica-
tions Workers’ Union and bring
nationalization closer. Failure to
maintain the maximum pressure
on the company could result in a
defeat for organized labor.

The militant program of co-
ordinated action adopted by the
B.C. Federation of Labor should
be welcomed. That program help-
ed to bring a settlement of the Na-
bob dispute, against another hard-
nosed multinational corporation.
It should help to bring about settle-

ments for the telephone workers

UFAWU organizer John Radosevic (r) waits with UI director in protest over arbitrary commission rulings and discriminat-

ory regulations.

Cocksedge, ‘‘Production is down
and the opportunities for work
just aren’t there.”

In addition to the restrictive
regulations, both fishermen and
shoreworkers have faced ar-
bitrary disentitlement for a varie-
ty of reasons, including the failure
to state that they will take a job
anywhere. Those who have dif-
ficulty with the language are often
the victims.

As aresult of Friday’s meeting,
regional director Cocksedge also
agreed to provide interpreters in
areas where they are needed.

and Lower Mainland municipal
workers.

Big business in B.C. is worried
about more than the long-term ef-
fects of good wage settlements
(substantially above the rate of in-
flation) for telephone and muni-
cipal workers.

What the Province editorial
writer and those he represents are
concerned about is spelled out in
this paragraph:

“This is a heavy bargaining year
throughout the country. The B.C.
Forest industry faces tough negoti-
ations with the International
Woodworkers of America in the
spring. The impact of the B.C. Tel
move will be felt far and wide.” In
short, the hard-line position of
B.C. Tel could aggravate every ma-
jor set of contract negotiations in
B.C. during 1981, including the
forest industry, B.C. Hydro, the
road builders, Cominco at Trail,
the B.C. Ferries, Metro Transit, the
chain food stores and the Fisheries
Association. In all, 456 major col-
lective agreements are due to expire
in 1981, covering more than 214,-
000 workers. (Agreements for the
B.C. Telephone workers and the
striking municipal workers expired
prior to 1981.)

The Financial Post of Feb. 21

put the additional concern this
way:

“B.C. employers are clearly get-
ting worried that the bad blood

Published weekly at Suite 101 — 1416 Commercial Drive,
Vancouver, B.C. V5L 3X9. Phone 251-1186

Read the paper that fights for labor

City or town
Postal Code

| am enclosing:
1 year $12 2 years $220 6 months $7 0

OldO New Foreign 1 year $16 0
Bill me later (1) Donation$..........

ee

The numbers of hours per in-
surable week has also been drop-
ped to 15 — thus enabling more
shoreworkers to qualify —
although the problem of
employers reducing workers’
hours to avoid premiums has still
to be solved.

The review of cases which the
UFAWU believes to have been
treated unfairly by the commis-
sion was set to begin Thursday.

Cocksedge also pledged to
begin immediately to deal with
the huge backlog of cases.

could start to unravel the generally
good relationship that business a0
labor have developed over the pas!
four years.”’ This explains the col
cern of many big business figur@)
over the intransigent stand of the
B.C. Telephone Company. The
still feel that the B.C. economy ca?
afford to make more concessio®
than employers like B.C. Tel al
prepared to offer and that the bal
gaining tactics of B.C. Tel threal
ens their plans to suck B.C. lab
leaders into a relationship based 0?
class partnership instead of claS)
struggle. : :
However, if big business hl

Ee a oe

ure, added to the pressure of the #4
bor movement, can bring about?
settlement the telephone worke®
can live with, there will be oth@
sharp struggles as the year unfolds:
It should be obvious by now thal
the workers of B.C., because of i”
flation and declining living stand
ards, because of the threat to jo®
from automation and because of
the relatively prosperous state ?
the economy (as compared to east
ern Canada), are determined 1
protect and advance their livile
standards. The tough stand tak?
by the B.C. Federation of Labor ®
areflection of this mood, and a!
flection of the realization on th®
part of many labor leaders that thé
soft, cooperate-with-big-busine®
approach will not satisfy. the legit!
mate demands and expectations of
the membership. We could be #
for a hot summer!

aa Ry RPT SUR TSUN SO AE TITS =