PRAIRIE PROVINCES

Deregulation brings tragedy to Prairies

“Freedom to Move’’, federal trans-
port minister Don Mazankowski’s July
1985 proposals for transportation de-
regulation, was quickly favored by the
monopolies dominant in the industry.
But for working people in western Cana-
da, especially farmers, the Tory trans-
port policy has far-reaching negative
consequences.

While deregulation became a major
focus of big capital after the 1980 election
of U.S. President Reagan, the Canadian
Labor Congress (among others) has
pointed out that there has been a long
struggle for ‘‘certain minimum social
_standards of behavior ... a reflection of
the social nature of economic activity,
the role of governments, taxpayers, and
workers in making that activity possible,
and the minimum rights that accrue to
them as a result’’. Nowhere is that truer
than in such cases as the CPR. Today a
vast business empire, the corporation
which is such a major force in western
Canada was a virtual creation of public
funds and workers’ sweat, on land stolen
from the Native peoples. Ironically, the
CPR is one of the loudest voices calling
for deregulation.

The Mulroney government, of course,
has continued the Liberal/Conservative
tradition of subsidies, tax deferrals and
other giveaways to big corporations. Yet
it likes to pontificate about “‘greater re-
liance on competition and market forces
... less regulation and less government
interference’’, to quote Mazankowski in
‘Freedom to Move’’.

From Regina

Kimball Cariou

Volumes could be written about what
deregulation means for the prairies. But
the effects can be summed up quite brie-
fly: destruction of rural communities; he
loss of thousands of jobs, and greater
U.S. transnational domination of the
economy.

Disaster for Prairies

For farmers, ‘‘Freedom to Move”’ and
related Tory policies are an extension of
past threats to the grain handling system,
such as branch-line abandonment. That
process has cut the economic lifelines of
many rural towns in recent years, despite
a persistent fightback by farmers. It has
been accompanied by a rapid decline in
the numbers of grain elevators, as private
grain companies and the Wheat Pools
concentrate their grain collection points
in search of higher profits.

These and other issues have been
under debate in recent months on the
prairies. The federal Grain Transporta-
tion Agency has been holding hearings as
part of its review of the Western Grain
Transportation Act, the legislation which
killed the Crow freight rate.

During the Regina session in De-

Organized labour in Alberta received
another blow when the Alberta Labor
Relations Board (LRB), in a decision
handed down early this year, declared
that unilateral wage cuts are legal. The
Labor Relations Board ruling was in
response to an appeal by United Food
and Commercial Workers. This union
represents workers at the Edmonton
Co-operative Association who _ had
their wages slashed 10 per cent uni-
laterally by management last
November at the end of their contract.
In addition the Edmonton Co-op cut
wages for new employees by 20 per
cent.

The United Food and Commercial
Workers in representing the workers at
Edmonton Co-op have rejected filing an
unfair labor practice complaint as ‘‘a
waste of time’’. Representative Jules
Beaudry told the Tribune that they are
“now going into mediation with the
Co-op’ and “‘if nothing happens they
will pull their people out.”

Carte Blanche for Employers

The LRB decision ruling means that
an employer can impose new terms and
conditions, once the contract has ex-
pired, providing notice has been served
before that expiry. Even though the
Edmonton Co-op in terminating the
contract had violated its own agree-
ment with the union by giving 30 days
notice instead of 60 days, this was ruled
legal by the LRB. This decision was on
the grounds that the Alberta Labor Re-
lations Act overrides all union con-
tracts in the province.

This decision by the LRB will affect

ticularly with double digit unemploy-
ment. The meat packing industry has
already used the threat of hiring the
-unemployed to force concessionary
agreements on their workers.

all union negotiations in Alberta, par- -

Employers get free hand
to impose contract terms

From
Edmonton

David , ) i

Cuts Will Become Automatic

In short the LRB decision means that
in the future management can simply
give notice at the end of the contract
period that they are cutting wages and
benefits. The LRB has already de-
clared, in a dispute between the con-
Struction unions and Alberta con-
tractors, that continuation clauses in
contracts have no validity in Alberta.

Alberta contractors had locked out
workers for 25 hours before declaring
the old contract dead and imposing
lower wages. This new ruling elimi-
nates the need even for that.

While this ruling immediately affects
the workers at Edmonton’s Co-op
stores it gives the green light to the cor-
porate sector to launch an all-out attack
on all workers and force down wages
and living conditions. Already contract
agreements for the unionized sector in
Alberta are trailing the cost of inflation,
with private sector settlements at 2.1
per cent in 1985 and the public sector at
1.8 per cent (to the end of September).

Organized labor is now faced with
the need for joint action in Tory Alberta
to prevent the further erosion of wages
and benefits. Dave Werlin, president of
the Alberta Federation of Labor stated
that the AFL is ‘going to call on the
labor movement to co-ordinate their
demands and responses in bargaining

. so they don’t pick us off one at a
time.”

cember, CP Rail president Russel Allison
unabashedly called for an. even “‘less
regulated rail system.’’ He supported
*‘greater flexibility in setting grain freight
rates’* a concept recommended by
Mazankowski. He also called for vari-
able rates, which would not be strictly
related to distance from ports, and for a
reduction in the numbers of branch lines.
(“Freedom to Move” proposes to drop
the current requirement that railways
prove an operating loss before closing a
branch line.) Allison rejected any railway
responsibility for the current financial
plight of farmers, saying that to freeze
rates would make little difference to their
situation.

CP Rail’s push for variable rates won
important support from the Alberta
Wheat Pool annual meeting in De-
cember. Some delegates pointed to the
negative impact this would have on small
communities, as farmers would haul
grain longer distances, past their local
elevators, to get a slightly better deal.
The inevitable costly damage to rural
roads caused by longer hauling is also
well documented. But the majority of de-
legates agreed with Pool executives that
‘‘variable rates are inevitable’, and that
the corporate interests of the Pool force it
to compete with other grain companies.
The change of position led many obser-
vers to recall the Saskatchewan Wheat
Pool’s agreement during the last Liberal
administration, to ‘‘negotiate’’ the Crow
rate. That process ended in the elim-
ination of the rate and resulted in higher
freight costs.

The current transportation debate also
covers another post-Crow development
— the review of the last government's
decision to pay the railways over $650-
million a year to subsidize grain trans-
port. Wealthy livestock producers in Al-
berta, supported by their provincial
government, are leading a push for the
money to be paid directly to farmers.
They argue that the system means an
artificially high price for feed grain, since
they must pay the full export price
charged for grain at Vancouver and
Thunder Bay, although they are closer to
the point of production.

Subsidy Seen as Lever

But the majority of Prairie farmers still
hold that switching the method of pay-
ment would relieve the railways of the
little public responsibility they still have.
The massive annual subsidy is seen as a
lever to force the railways to live up to
their commitments to maintain the grain
shipping system properly.

Mazankowski has hinted that he
favors direct payments to producers. But
there is strong opposition in the west to
the change. The National Farmers
Union, the Wheat Pools, and the Man-
itoba Government have all opposed the
switch, with the NFU going furthest in
demanding a return to the statutory
Crow rate system. A weakening of the
NDP position on the freight rate issue
was signalled by its federal transport cri-
tic, Regina West MP Les Benjamin, in
the Commons last month. He said he still
supports the Crow, but that the NDP
would be willing to support the current
higher rate if the government froze it ina
new statutory rate. Although the debate
over rail transport has dominated the
discussion on deregulation in the
prairies, the policy has other aspects.
U.S. experience suggests declining

safety standards, attacks on unions, and
massive job cuts will be among the ef-
fects of deregulation of trucking and
airlines.

Invites U.S. Take-overs

Manitoba is particularly sensitive to
trucking deregulation. Winnipeg's cent-
ral geographic location was a factor in
making it the base for eight of Canada’s
14 largest truckers. Over 400 provincial
companies employ about 10,000 Manito-
bans. Ken Maclaren, executive director
of the Canadian Trucking Association
warns that Mazankowski's proposals in-
vite U.S. firms to take over segments of
the Canadian market, at the expense of
smaller domestic companies. “‘It’s like
letting Attila the Hun and Genghis Khan
loose’’, he says.

‘In the U.S., the 1980 trucking deregu-
lation opened the way for thousands of
tiny operations to spring up, but a wave
of mergers and takeovers has left three
dominant carriers. These three, Yellow
Freight, Consolidated Freightways, and
Roadway Services, are already expand-
ing into Ontario. Free Trade, and the
trucking deregulation: in Canada
scheduled by the premiers and the Mul-
roney government to take effect by Jan. 1,
1987, is expected to ease their take-over
of much of the domestic industry, espe-
cially the most profitable routes. Cuts in
services to small towns (especially in the
north, the prairies, and the Atlantic), are
sure to follow. In the long run, business
failures, loss of jobs, and higher prices
can be expected after a period of compet-
ition and shakeout of weaker firms.

Widely publicized cheap air fares be-
tween major cities are perhaps the best-
known ‘‘advantage’’ of deregulation, in
the airline industry. But there's a darker

side, particularly for sparsely populated —

areas such as the prairies. The Canadian
Labor Congress study of the issue re-
ports that 351 U.S. communities have
less air service than before — and 106
none at all.

Mounting safety problems are also
being reported in the U.S. under de-
regulation. For example, the U.S. Gen-
eral Accounting Office has found that the
small commuter aircraft typical of the
new environment have an accident rate
seven times higher than larger planes.

Major Factor in Job Losses

Deregulation of transportation has
been a major factor in elimination of jobs,
according to the CLC, since employment
in the airline industry has dropped by
40,000, and on the railways by 150,000.
In every industry where deregulation has
hit, unions, wages, and working condi-
tions have come under attack by
employers scrambling to cut costs.

The overall impact of deregulation on
transportation was clearly stated by the
NFU recently. *‘The major winners will
be the largest players in the game, like
Canadian Pacific, the CNR, and major
freight shippers on both sides of the bor-
der. The NFU and others also warn of
changing transportation patterns. For
example, many farm commodities may
be exported more cheaply through the
Mississippi River than via the St. Law-
rence Seaway, costing Canadian jobs.
**Freedom to Move’, the NFU con-
cludes, will inevitably mean integration
of our transportation system with that of
the U.S: It’s a view echoed by Manitoba
Trucking Association president Rolly
Painchaud. He says deregulation will
mean a shift in commerce patterns from
east-west, to north-south, *‘threatening
Canada’s national identity”’.

Just as with the free trade proposals of
the Mulroney government, there ‘is
wide-ranging opposition to deregulation.
But if the devastation threatened by
these policies is to be averted, more polit-
ical pressure on the Tories will be
necessary!

PACIFIC TRIBUNE, JANUARY 22, 1986 e 7