Trades training: not at expense of union rights By MARTY SMITH Imagine B.C. during the 1980’s- with its economy booming with “large scale infrastructural development tied to significant growth in the tourist and travel in- dustry, petroleum and coal pro- ducts group... .” This is the vision of the Van- couver Board of Trade expressed in its recent study, ‘‘A Time for Ac- tion: A survey of critical trade skills in the Lower Mainland.” The primary concern voiced in the Board of Trade study (“‘because the main cost of produc- tion is labor’’) is ‘‘to develop a work force to meet the needs of a growing economy.” This work force, the Board of Trade feels, should be tailored to demand by “having readily available and rele- ~ vant skills during the upcycle.”’ The Board of Trade proposes that this pool of trained labor be created by: a greater portion of educational funds being allocated to trades training; full government financing of all training costs and ‘more government sponsorship of trainingin medium and large firms; increasing subsidy benefits under Canada Employment and Im- migration Commission programs for ‘‘severe shortage categories” such as fabricators, heavy duty mechanics, millwrights. and machinists; increased specializa- tion of training; suspension of union seniorit, rules and wage structures related to apprentices. In short, the Board of Trade wants to be fully prepared to reap the spoils of the next economic boom period by having an abun- dance of seml and highly skilled labor. It wants the cost of training these workers now shifted to the taxpaying public, and it wants the elimination of hard won union seniority rights and wage struc- yo ©: example of the type of work force envisaged in the study’s recommendations is evident from the following quote: ‘‘With our employment based training in- capable of producing an ample supply of, say, carpenters during a period of strong economic recovery, it might be necessary to train door fitters or stairwell builders if there is a burgeoning de- mand for these skills.”’ This is in sharp contrast to previous recommendations of the B.C. Department of Labor, which in a 1975 study, ‘‘Manpower outlook in the B.C. Carpentry Trades’’ stated: ‘‘The practice of specialization further prevents the industry from maximizing the full | potential of carpenters. Not being able to work in all facet of the trade causes many tradesmen to lose pro- ficiency and often results in boredom. This can lead to a further - decline in effectiveness as well as discouraging tradesmen from re- maining in the industry.” The B.C. Department of Labor study also called for ‘‘stable and continuous employment to ap- prentices ...under no cir- cumstances should additional ap- prentices be indentured simply to alleviate short term workloads.”’ I believe the Department of Labor recommendations are more suited to the realities of the B.C. © construction industry than are those of the Board of Trade. Carpenters in B.C. are a good example of what the Board of Trade doesn’t like. With one stan- ' dard agreement stipulating one wage rate for all journeymen and one wage schedule for all appren- tices, B.C. carpenters have the best wages and working conditions in Canada. This is what the Board of Trade calls “‘inflexible wage struc- tures.’” If there were instant training for specialized categories of workers there would also have to be a dif- ferential of wage schedules, and a consequent weakening of union bargaining power due to pressures from without or divisions within the ranks of organized labor. Could this be another motive of the Board of Trade for its criticism of the apprentice system? According to David Rice, research director of the B.C. Federation of Labor, though there is no absolute shortage of trained workers in the construction in- dustry, there is in other industries. He pointed out that there are 14.5 thousand apprentices in B.C. in all industries, an inadequate number to meet the needs of ‘‘normal in- dustrial growth”’ based on past ex- perience. The chief reason for the lack of 3 apprentices in B.C. is the failure of industry to train its own employees. Instead industry usually attempts to ‘‘pirate’’ trained workers already available. Certainly the volume of appren- tice training must be stepped up. This will benefit both industry and workers. But industry has a responsibility to finance, at least in _part, the training of workers from which it will benefit. Another objective in trades training for which all can agree is for better manpower forecasting. The B.C. Federation of Labor has approved cooperation with the Employers Council of B.C. to get - individual firms to make five-year projections of employment needs. This information would greatly assist in planning training pro- grams. _ The trade union movement is vitally interested in the training of and upgrading, of workers, but its primary concern is for the well be- ing of the worker, and not only the cost of production. Lets get on with the job of improving trades train- ing in B.C., but not at the sacrifice of union rights and conditions, and stable, secure employment for ap- prentices. Marty Smith is a business agent Sor the Vancouver Local 452 of the Carpenters Union. Native interests ‘not once considered in coal sellout Continued from page 1 detailed, and the public has been consulted,’’ Prince Rupert alder- man Mike Darnell declared, ad- ding that the rest of council shared his position. “The coal deal and Kemano II — which are no corner store pro- jects — will have a tremendous im- pact on the Northeast and the com- munities and native groups here,”’ Darnell said, ‘‘but both projects are going in with little or no con- sultation with the public.” “The provincial government has made commitments to pour hun- dreds of millions of dollars into moving coal to Japan but not once has it stopped to recognize the In- dian interest in the land, not once has it tried to consult with Indian people,”” George Manuel, presi- dent of the Union of B.C. Indian Chiefs said, in voicing his organiza- tion’s opposition to the coal deal. _ “Theuse of that land for fishing, hunting, trapping and food gather- ing, besides the cultural relation- ship, is a hardcore economic rela- tionship for Indians,’? Manuel said. ‘The Anzac spur will interfere with the migration route of caribou, just one of many reasons SF eg erre Ss ar for native opposition to the development. ; The UBCIC is demanding that the provincial and federal govern- ments ‘‘allow them to be third par- ty in any decision relating to economic development in the Nor- theast,”’ which, if denied, will mean ‘“‘destructive changes for the Indians there. ‘It would be an act of genocide,’’ Manuel declared, “