THE BUDDY SYSTEM

| Labor-management committees

By RAE MURPHY

Ty AB
| L teen management commit-
4 Recender the auspices of
vith the ment departments and
trap : Participation of “neu-
OF fro tties from universities
(wheteve, e Community at large
ne toda ay is) are the big
3 ce . ey are being tout-
iis ag working class as
(b) ais a (a) something new
strat ae bee ningtul in in-

0

CY are nai
Me Tush jg on net: DUL anyway

Ih :
my eres, labor’s pat-
e €se’ committee
ote pele hooked in :
Deine poe: He knows
aa Tobbed, but it’s the
N8 Yni a town,
‘ st recently told me
ae instance in his
Was estab; such a commit-
Of the sned. The limita-
the peaubittee were
t deal weinning. They
es atisine grievances or
@ ane Out of the col-
health a4 So they dis-
a Safety condi-
plattc Worker repre-
Ventilati €d pressing for
equipment and
to Cost tems that were
Wo ‘e + company a
ane love-fest cool-
Ww "where the en-
broken. The

By p
Age. VtUS CLARKE

I &tg a tEWAN labor lead-
busy these days

"8 against the
that the Liberal

Walter Thatcher
year

tactep. Palgn has a tatoo

0 the for
in = ormer
7 eno! trad en legislative for-

¥ ajon ‘ MNOnists held in
sor the ne the province
iy Ome €r, there h
7 nic d ecuogs of eehers
Rg abor |
ar eade
| eet angePearing in farm,
8 With ee Publications
cs Ove €gislation.

1” Moos <° Year :

py, ova ars the trad

nn Mad pad in Resiatche:

Which ec Under legisla-

Mn bese they descr;

Wig tin Cena as
MyiMendnP28828e of Bit 79
lay ¢ Act to the Trade
4 Sery; and pi rade

Be ae Vides.”

y the lee o ate Character of
! br Mover 'N relation to

¢ Ap, like ent

hn eg “yettchewan can be
ang than a yOu consider
het : Pere

Private Workers tae # St
I ee te are in

‘ Te, 2 Whinp ’
“Sag. 4 Saat Passed in
tchewa Sti at
orpo-

committee is still in existence
and the functionary somewhere
within the bowels of the federal
Department of Manpower who
keeps count of these committees
no doubt, still has a gold star
beside the name of this particu-
lar plant.

It would appear this perfor-
mance was more typical than
exceptional. Labor-management
committees are as old as Con-
federation, maybe older. At the
recent economic conference a
vice-president of the Canadian
National Railway stated that
such a committee was in exis-
tence in the CNR since the
1920's. He went on to point out
that these committees ‘waxed
and waned” but one thing they
would never do is tell the CNR
how to run its. railroad line.

“Ah, there’s the rub,” as Rich-
ard Burton once said.

If labor-management commit-
tees aren’t going to replace the
bargaining unit’s functions, and
if management refuses to have
any of its “residual rights” up-
dated, they really can have scant
purpose this side of Moral Re-
armament. Except as a balm for
those who really believe that
the conflict between labor and
capital exists only in the eyes
of the beholder. In the hard-
nosed 1960's, one wonders how
many such dewy-eyed people
can really exist.

The question is not so much
of the committees themselves,
but rather the time, place and
circumstance. in which they
arise, and what is the legal
framework under which they
operate.

In Ontario, for example, it has
been announced recently that a
Union-Management Council has
been. established under the De-
partment of Labor. This council
is an outgrowth of & secret in-
formal committee that has been
meeting during the past year.
It surfaces now, prior to the
presentation of the Rand Com-
mission report, amid welcoming
noises from all parties con-
cerned.

Douglas Hamilton, secretary-
treasurer of the Ontario Federa-
tion of Labor, said the formation
of the council represented an
advance in labor relations.

Larry Sefton, District 6 direc-
tor of the United Steel Workers,
is quoted as welcoming the
council. He is also going to be
a member of it.

Immediately the council is to
deal basically with questions
relating to manpower training
and labor standards. What the
committee’s long-range role will
be is still deep in the heart of
clichéville. According to labor
minister Dalton Bales, “Its (the
council's) real impact, if it suc-

ceeds in establishing a solidly
based place for itself in our in-
dustrial relations picture, may
not be felt for some time.”

Bales went on to mention the
opportunity which will afford
the committee to examine their
responsibilities, “to the public
interest in light of our generally
accepted social and economic
goals.”

What are “our generally ac-
cepted social and economic
goals”? I don’t believe there are
any. The whole point. of the
crisis in labor-employer relations
today is that each party’s social
and economic goals are diamet-
rically opposed, and to seek to
patch this over by voluntary
committees or councils is mean-
ingless at best and moreover
potentially dangerous to the la-
bor movement.

Larry Sefton himself pointed
out this discrepancy at the Eco-
nomic Council’s Ottawa confer-
ence. last month. Dealing with
the problems of re-training and
technological change generally
Sefton said:

“There must be some type of
obligation and responsibility im-
posed on industry, and the gov-
ernment must have enough
backbone to exercise leadership
in that direction.

“Very litile progress on such
an important problem has been

IN SASKATCHEWAN

Fight anti-labor legislation

ration to accept compulsory arbi-
tration, is of course fully appli-
cable to the workers in munici-
pal and other power, gas and
water supply and service em-
ployees as well as hospital and
nursing home employees. Sas-
katchewan’s organized workers
are found in large part in those
occupations, :

The Saskatchewan Federation
of Labor in its submission to
the government last November
had this to say:

“In Saskatchewan, the intro-

duction of compulsory arbitra-.

tion has produced a particularly
anomalous situation. The Trade
Union Act prior to Bills 79 and
2 relied entirely and successfully
on voluntary processes for dis-
putes settlement. Bill 2, in par-
ticular, relies on compulsion, yet
ostensibly the voluntary proce-
dures are still available to those
affected. But are the voluntary
procedures in fact still useable?
Experience elsewhere says no.
That is why some provinces have
been moving away even from
compulsory conciliation.

“A recent experience with a
member of a Saskatchewan con-
ciliation board indicates what
can be expected. When confront-
ed with the responsibility of
rendering a decision he announ-
ced that he was going to do
nothing that might influence the
final step which, in his view of
Bill 2, was arbitration. This in-
cident serves to confirm what

we have been saying all along.
When compulsory arbitration ‘is
understood to constitute the
final step in disputes settlement
it makes a farce of any form of
voluntary negotiation.

“So long as Bill 2 and Rail-
way Arbitration hang over the
heads of Saskatchewan employ-
ees, 40 percent of the labor
movement in the province will
be forced to rely upon cabinet-
inspired judgement as to what
relationship the incomes and
conditions of-the 40 percent shall
bear to the’ standards of the 60
percent who still retain a modi-
cum of power to establish wages
and working conditions.”

And what do the bosses think
about the amendments? The fol-
lowing are excerpts from the
assessment of Bill 79 circulated
by the Saskatchewan Employers’
Association.

“The amendments dealing
with voting by secret ballot be-
fore a strike is called, taken in
conjunction with other amend-
ments made to section 32 which
deals with union security, Pro-
tects individual employees
against coercion and intimida-
tion by over-zealous union offi-
cials to a much greater degree
than did the old Act...

“If... the actual power to
make decisions, sign contracts,
and take strike action, etc., is
truly vested in the individuals
composing a body such as a
trade union, and such individuals

are prepared to jointly and seve-
rally accept full responsibility
for their acts and decisions and
in which case the union merely
acts as an agent, then it would
seem that the union itself should
not be required to become a
legal entity...

“The new amendments ale
spell out that an employer may
have the freedom to express his
views to employees without
being charged with an unfair
labor practice so long as, in the
board’s opinion, the employer’s
expression of view does not in
itself amount to a threat, a pro-
mise or carry undue influence. ..

“The ‘no appeals’ provisions
contained in section 20 still
stands. However it has been
amended to the extent that the
words — ‘and the board shall
have full power to determine
any question of fact necessary
to its jurisdiction’ have been
stricken out. This could signifi-
cantly enlarge the power of the
courts to review decisions of the
Labor Relations Board.”

This makes very clear that
the thrust of the amendments
is anti-labor and the trade union
movement has no doubt about
it. :

The result has been a draw-
ing together of the labor move-
ment, reflected for instance. by
the increase of affiliations to the
Saskatchewan Federation which
is up from 21,000 in 1964 to
25,000 this year.

made on a voluntary basis in
any country and I have seen
nothing to indicate that we are
about to embark on a new era
in socio-economic relations.”
Hasn’t William Mahoney told
Sefton about Sweden? One is
also tempted, in view of Sefton’s
membership on just such a vol-
untary committee, to ask the
real Mr. Sefton to please stand
up, but this is really secondary.
The dangerous element in

these committees is that they
arise in conditions of absolutely

no progress toward the goal of
worker participation in the .af-
fairs of the given industry or
factory in which he is employed.
These committees are toothless
when it comes to defending or
extending the rights of the work-
ers. Moreover, they arise in a
context of growing pressure to
legally hamstring the labor
movement, with compulsory ar-
bitration labor courts and wage
guide lines and controls. They
easily can serve as a cover for
the attack on labor which is
actually being mounted.

Workers are naturally quite
suspicious of the “buddy sys-
tem’ of industrial relations.
When it is promoted, as it is
now, almost behind the backs
of the workers, much less with-
out rank and file participation.
it spells trouble.

The fight is seen as part of
the general opposition to the
Thatcher government. There are
those who are trying to tie the
labor movement solely into a
vote CCF position with no inde-
pendent campaign. However, the
point of view seems to be pre-
vailing that labor needs to fight
on its own, to win other sec-
tions of the community on their

‘side in relation to labor legisla-

tion, Thus the present activity
not only by. the federation but
also by individual unions.

As a number of trade union-
ists have said, this will probably
do more to help defeat the Libe-
rals than a mere call to vote
CGF:

Saskatchewan labor is aware
that Thatcher could go even
further in anti-labor legislation.
For example, ex parte injunc-
tions are still prohibited in labor
disputes. But they feel the cam-
paign against Bill 79 and Bill 2
is the best way to prevent fur-
ther incursions on their rights.

“It has now become abun-
dantly clear what has been
meant by all the government
talk about freedom and com-
pulsion. It means freedom for-
the boss and compulsion for the
employees,” said a SFL bulletin
last fall. The need today is to
convince other sections of the
community that the fight against
the new legislation is in their
interest and not just a sectional
fight by labor.

April 28, 1967—PACIFIC TRIBUNE—Page 5