Industrial democracy is one of
the issues left over from the recent
Contract negotiations between the
International Woodworkers of
America and the lumber bosses.
_ The February wage and contract
Conference set the stage when it
adopted the following resolution:
“That we demand the setting up of
a joint management-union com-
mittee mutually agreed upon for
the purpose of drafting recom-
mendations for sharing decision-
making.’’

I spoke recently with a number
of active IWA members. They said
they expected very little from the
talks that will take place between
the union and management on this
'Ssue. In the first place, a two-year
Contract has been signed and
management is therefore under no
_ pressure to make substantial
_ Concessions. But union leaders
have never revealed their precise
Proposals nor has the membership
been involved as yet in discussing
the extension of workers’ rights.

The report on co-determination
delivered to the wage and contract
Conference was. critical of the
Concept, which involves electing
Workers to boards of directors as
token members, with the ultimate
authority on the most vital issues
remaining in the hands of the
-€mployers. Nevertheless a
resolution in favor of “sharing
decision-making” was adopted. It
Should be noted in this context that
the report called for widening the
Scope of collective bargaining. It
Proposed that such questions as job
enrichment, job rotation and a
workers’ voice in decisions af-
fecting production should be in-
cluded in the collective agreement.

Industrial.democracy debate opens

It is not likely that the owners of:

the largestindustry in the province
will surrender any of their major
prerogatives just because IWA
leaders engage them in a friendly

discussion. If it was otherwise, it
would be a different world for
woodworkers, a world with no
classes and no class struggle.
Those officers, job stewards and
activemembers who are genuinely
concerned with extending the
scope of collective bargaining will

no doubt begin to speak up. As a.

start, they might consider asking
the Regional Negotiating Com-
mittee to spell out what they will be
asking for in talks with
management. If there is to be any

LABOR
COMMENT

BY JACK PHILLIPS

workers in managing the industry,
it should start with meaningful
participation in formulating union
policy.

For some thirty years now, the
debate on extending industrial
democracy has been confined to
narrow circles. As a matter of fact,
it has been discussed more widely
in certain academic and political
circles than in the trade union
movement itself. Despite the ob-
vious weaknesses of the concept of
tripartism as advanced by the
Canadian Labor Congress, it
played a positive role in drawing
attention to the limitations of
collective bargaining as we know it
today.

The terms industrial democatcy
and workers’ control are used
frequently by those who theorize on
the role of the trade unions. In-
dustrial democracy is sometimes

referred to the first stage -in

workers’ control which, in turn, is
defined as direct control over the
scheduling of work, the speed of

production, work methods and the
selection of supervision. Workers’
control is also spoken of as the
power to have a veto over layoffs,
discipline and other management
rights.

Most advocates of workers’
control argue that at some point
the workers must take up the
question of public ownership of the
decisive sectors of the economy, to
consolidate the gains made
through separate industrial ac-
tions. and to create the conditions

for overall economic planning. To.

achieve those ggals and to protect
the workers from a state controlled
by the owning class, they advocate
combining economic action with
political action. Political action
would make it possible to win allies
outside the labor movement in the

' long, dawn-out struggle against the
meaningful participation by the.

monopolies. It would also open the
way to a government that would
use state power to accelerate the
process of taking power from the
monopolies, thus advancing the
working people to a dominant
position in society.

Those who argue in favor of
extending industrial democracy
include Communists, members of
the NDP And some who lean in the
direction of syndicalism. Those
who have the syndicalist approach
tend to over-emphasize industrial
action in relation to political ac-
tivity and to blindly worship the
spontaneous flare-up. They play
down the role of political ideology

and fail to understand the ~

catalyzing role of a mass

’ revolutionary party with its main
base in the working class and the
trade union movement.

The Communist Party of Canada
has given a constructive lead on
the extension of collective
bargaining. In his concluding
remarks to the recent convention
of the party, William Kashtan,

ee ~~]

WA DELEGATES IN CONVENTION... the convention touched on
industrial democracy but has yet to determine where it is going on the
issue.

party leader, pledged the full
support of his party to the concept
that workers should have a say on
all questions of concern to the
working class.

“This is a basic democratic
issue” he said, ‘‘which hits at
monopoly power. The more one
hits on the question of why the
working class has no rights on
questions that are of concern to
them, the more one poses the
limitations of bourgeois
democracy and the fact that on
basic questions the workers have

no rights to all. Those rights are
the sole prerogative of
management. The battle on this
issue becomes animportant part of
the struggle against monopoly and
for fundamental change at this
time.”’

“At the same time we must warn
against ‘the right of a say’ being
perverted and distorted to forms
of class collaboration, which the
right wing in the NDP and the
trade union movement not given
up. Britain is a classical example,
as is West Germany.”

Marketing boards

investigation into the high cost of

This is the second of two artricles
Summarizing the submission of the
Vancouver and District Labor
Council to the provincial govern-
ment’s select standing committee
on agriculture and food costs.
Prepared by the Trade Union
Research Bureau the brief has two
main sections: production and
marketing; and processing and
retailing. Last week the Tribune
looked at the processing and
retailing section of the food in-
dustry and found corporate con-
centration in this portion of the
food industry to be the principal
Cause of high food costs. This week,
We drawon the Labor Council brief
to explain the controversy
Surrounding marketing boards,
which has been singled out by the
Media and the provincial govern-
ment’s committee as the scapegoat

for high food costs.
* *e *

Marketing boards. You could

Substitute almost any dirty word

' Without changing the subject in the
Current discussion on high food
Costs. Add ‘‘egg” marketing board,
or “boiler chicken” marketing
board, or “milk”? marketing board
and the curses will really fly. Food
Costs have jumped by over six
Percent in the first six months of
this year in B.C. and without a
doubt, the marketing boards are
the most frequently named as the
Villians.

But are the charges just? Are
Marketing boards the principal
Cause of high food costs, and, more
to the point, would foot costs come
down if marketing boards were
dismantled?

_ A look at the facts shows that an

food will reveal few answers if the
Marketing board critics, for
the main focus of the inquiry.
Makreting board critics, for
example, have made a lot of noise
about the fact that chicken prices
are substantially higher in B.C.
than in Ontario. A closer look,
though, finds that 89 percent of the
higher price accrues to
wholesalers and retailers, and not
to the producers through the
marketing boards.

That is not to say that marketing
boards are beyond criticism. They
are certainly part of the in-
stitutionalized system of corporate
rip offs that cause high food costs.
But they should be weighted up
factually, in the context of that
system. :

There are over 100 marketing
boards in Canada that handle
about 60 percent of farm produce in
the country. All marketing boards
are under provincial jurisdictions,
except for wheat and fish. For eggs
and turkeys there is a federal
umbrella agency that groups
together the provincial boards. In
B.C. thereare 11 marketing boards
covering vegetables, tree fruits,
broiler chickens, _ oysters,
mushrooms, eggs, turkeys,
cranberries, grapes and milk.

The concept of a marketing
board was pioneered and fought for
long and hard by western family
farmers. during the 1920’s and
1930’s. They demanded an orderly
marketing system to stop the price
manipulation of commodity

speculators and big business
corporate buyers and processors.
‘One of the first breakthroughs

aren't th

came in B.C. When a strike of
fruit and vegetable growers in the
early 1930’s won the Natural
Products Marketing Act of 1934.
The marketing board stablizied
farm income and stopped _in-
dependent farmers from _ being
completely wiped out.

During the 1960’s a second group
of marketing boards came into
being. This time, however, it was

e real vil

themselves are often dominated by

corporate extensions of the

agribusiness giants that rule the
processing and retailing sections of
the industry as well. Farmer’s
organizations like the National
Farmers Union have long
demanded collective bargaining
rights for farmers as the only way
to ensure that the producer gets a
fair shake, and to ensure that the

What would happen if marketing
hoards were done away with?
Harbor no illusions that the free
market would provide lower food

costs.

the modern inflationary spiral that
provided the motive. In the 1930’s
boards set minimum prices; in the
1960’s prices were set according to
cost of production.

The marketing boards were
established to get the farmer more
income. It is fairly clear then, that
the boards have made for
generally higher retail prices in
food.

But having said that, the real

problem with marketing boards is ©

their lack of market power. In the
first place, the food market is a
national market and most boards
are provincial; and hence, in
competition with each other. The
giant corporate buyers — four
retail chains monopolize Canada’s
food industry — exercise far
greater market power than the
boards.

Secondly, the marketing boards

marketing boards operate in the
interests of the majority of far-
mers.

But what would happen if the
boards were done away with, as
some people suggest? Harbor no
illusions that the “free market’?
would provide food at lower prices.
An example is the beef industry,
which in the absence of any
marketing authorities (although
the legislation for it is said to be in
the works) has a so-called “free
market.” Four years ago beef
prices were soaring 30 percent per
year; two anda half years ago beef
prices were climbing 20 percent
per year; one and a half years ago
prices were rising 15 percent per
year and it’s still increasing by
around 10 percent at present. While
the price to the consumer went sky
high, thousands of small cattle
producers during these years went

PACIFIC TRIBUNE—OCTOBER 14, 1977—Page 3

ains

bankrupt as the industry became
increasingly concentrated. Ob-
viously an open market for farm
produce is a chaotic luxury that we
can least afford.

The fact is that the agribusiness
giants will benefit with or without
the marketing boards through the
process of vertical integration, or
the takeover of related producers
by big capitalist farmers. The real
danger is of the power over prices
and supply that the corporate
sector will wield if corporate
producers completely take over
and dominate the marketing
boards as they do the processing
and retailing sections of the in-
dustry.

Marketing boards should not be
abolished, but they should be
transformed into institutions that
protect both producer and con-
sumer. All marketing authorities
should be run by a governing
council with equal representattion
from producers, consumers and
labor. They should be publicly
accountable for their actions and
issue quarterly reports on major
decisions that, in turn, should be
open for appeal.

That kind of marketing

authority, while not equipped to
deal with the principal cause of

high food costs — the retail food

monopolies — could go a long way
in bringing about some changes in
agriculture that would increase
food production and raise farm
income, without raising consumer
prices.

Now about those retail - food
monopolies, Mr. minister. . .