CFU march vows fight against contractors) About 200 members and sup- _province’s new Labor Standards The legislation gives some chers wound their wa t the Chouhan aimed his fire at the porters of the Canadian Farm- Act, for the first time regulating - rights to farmworkers, but it berry and vegetable fhe dane labor contractors who bring” workers Union took the fledgling hours of work, minimum wages _ leaves the labor contract system two-mile parade route. about 70 percent of the farm- union’s Fraser Valley organizing and other basic conditions. intact, he said, “and the union As the marchers came to each __—workers_to the fields from their _ drive to Clearbrook Saturday CFU president Raj Chouhan will not rest until itiseliminated.”? farm they would stop attheroad- homes in Greater Vancouver. } with a march and rally against the welcomed the legislation, terming About 600 of the 10,000 Fra- side and chant in English.and The contractors supply labor to | farm labor contract system. it_a ‘victory’? for the union. _ ser Valley farmworkershave join- Punjabi the union slogans which __ the large farms, receive one cash | The CFU’s spirits were clearly buoyed by the announcement on- ly two days before that farm- workers would be included in the “‘Sureit is a step forward,” he ad- ded, “‘but who forced them to do it — you did, the labor movement did, and the general public did.” ed the CFU, but the much greater strength the union has among the predominantly East Indian labor- €TS was apparent as the CFU mar- settlement, and then pay the | - workers, skimming a percentage | » of each worker’s earnings off the top. “Tt is accepted that the con- | tractors are taking between 25 and 40 percent of farmworkers’ earnings. What dotheydotoearm | this — provide transportation, | that is all,’’ Chouhan said. are becoming familiar in the fields. When the workers in the fields stood up to listen, the mar- chers would exhort them to leave the fields and join the march. Some would, and cheers would greet them as they ran from the fields, if only for their lunch break. Others would wave from the fields to show their support: Wo Buses waited at the end of the a : 13) march to bring the farmworkers For tw aia ipa they i back to asmall park nestled amid —_—P/Olt us this way. é the fields where Chouhan, B.C. The new Labor Standards Act | — will not outlaw contractors as the | Federation of Labor spokesman union wanted, however, instead Tom Fawkes and rank and file CFU members spoke, and labor opting foraformoflicensingand | singer Steve Gidora entertained. bonding. The CFU is urging a Observing the rally afew yards — minimum $50,000 bond and that no licenses be issued to certain | contractors who have abused | workers in the past. eS The inclusion of farmworkers in minimum wage regulations will mean a significant boost for most }~ workers, ‘Chouhan said. During 4} peak season when farmworkers are paid by the hour, the contract- ors take about $4.50 per hour per | worker and pay only $3.25. On piece rate, farmworkers get only | $2.05 per flat, which can take anf hour or more to fill. Bes The new legislation will be pos- itive only if it is enforced, the CFU leader said. away, was the owner of Jensen’s . Mushrooms, where the union has " applied for its first certification. Two workers from the farm spoke later and reported layoffs, and intimidation tactics to pre- vent the certification. “The only time a boss comes to aunion meeting is when heis wor- ried,” Fawkes said. ‘“‘And he should be worried because the farmworkers are going to win.’ The fight of farmworkers ‘‘is that of all workers,’’ Fawkes said, e 8 Th hale de pledging the support of the Fed- Canadian Farmworkers Union secretary Charan Gill (left) leads chant with blowhorn asthe marchers §¢ration and the Canadian Labor tenes! to workers in fields to join the demonstration. Congress: TRIBUNE PHOTO—FRED WILSON ro i Social workers fear loss of union rights Two recent circulars issued by the social, educational and health services component of the British Columbia Government Employees Union (May 7 and June 9, 1980) ex- press some concern over the pro- posed Social Work and Social Ser- vices Personnel Act. The concern of the BCGEU or- iginated with this item in the Van- couver Province Jan. 13: ‘‘all peo- ple practising social work in B.C. will have to register with the B.C. Association of Social Workers if a provincial act now in its third draft becomes law. “At present B.C. has 4,500 so- cial workers of whom only 1,419 are in the Association.” According to the BCGEU, this Act would “‘drastically affect’ over 3,000 members of that union. The May 7 circular from the BCGEU office, signed by director of administrative and program ser- vices Marg Arthur, raised five pointed questions: Why is this Act necessary? Why does it include all ~ social service workers, including fi- nancial allowance workers, proba- tion officers, child counsellors, psychiatric ‘social workers, social workers and so on? Why does the government need a separate act to achieve broad- banded classifications (‘human service worker’’ to cover all social service workers), standards, aca- demic qualifications and experi- ence levels when all the enabling legislation to achieve this is already on the books?. What implications does this leg- islation have for labor relations? Most members affected would no longer belong to the BCGEU. Why hasn’t the ministry of human re- sources, the BCASW or the Board of Registration for Social Workers solicited input from the BCGEU which is the legally recognized bar- gaining agent for the employees in- volved? The last concern of the union is understandable after the Board of Registration published April 20 what was described as ‘“‘the second draft of the proposed Social Work and Social Services Personnel Act, the result of two years of consulta- tion with diverse constituencies.’’ If the BCGEU is giving it. to us straight when they declare they were never consulted, and there is every reason to believe them, then it would appear that this is yet an- other example of the arrogance of the provincial Socred government in relation to public employees. LABOR COMMENT BY JACK PHILLIPS It was this arrogant and arbi- trary attitude in respect to the pro- visions of the superannuation plan for civil servants that sparked the recent work stoppages and protest meetings by BCGEU members in every part of the province. Since then, the provincial gov- ernment has again incurred the wrath of its civic servants by an- nouncing a hiring freeze without any consultation with the BCGEU. It is also recommending such a freeze to the heads of crown cor- porations, which would also’ in- volve members of the BCGEU, along with members of other un- ions. When the Board of Registration published the second draft of the proposed act, it said this about its impact on collective bargaining: ‘Nothing in this proposal is intend- PACIFIC TRIBUNE—JULY 18, 1980—Page 8 Ee — eee ed by the Board of Registration for Social Workers to alter in any way the collective bargaining rights of persons who may become register- ed or to alter the collective bargain- ing unit of persons who may be- come registered.”’ However, another circular issu- ed by Marg Arthur, dated June 9, appears to take issue-with that claim. She makes the following points: @ We are forced to conclude . that the proposed act means licens- ing of social workers. Therefore the collective bargaining unit of social workers will be ‘“‘altered.’’ All social workers would leave the BCGEU and become part of the licensed professionals bargaining unit, if the act was passed. : @ Social workers would not have access to certain rights under the collective agreement, such as grievance procedure. @ Due process for disciplinary procedures under the proposed Act - would not have the same strength as the grievance procedure, and the employee would also be held re- sponsible for the costs of represent- ation. These objections to the propos- ed legislation were published after a June 9 meeting between represent- atives of the BCGEU, the BCASW, and the Board of Regis- tration. The meeting was called on the initiative of the BCGEU. Arthur had this to say about the results of the meeting: ~ @ Aunion request that the pro- posed legislation should not be sub- mitted to the government until there is agreement, or agreement to disagree, was not accepted. @ A BCGEU request for a commitment that it would have an opportunity to review and make comments on a new draft of the Act which was being prepared was not offered. @ The BCASW made it clear that while it was prepared to ‘‘con- sult with the social welfare com- munity,’ the BCGEU was consid- ered to be ‘‘a. secondary level for consultation.” According to Arthur, the BCGEU representatives argued at ‘the June 9 meeting that the Act must not have the effect of remov- ing social service members from the BCGEU bargaining unit. As the ae presently stands, it would, they said. The BCGEU also insisted that the Act must not affect any rights currently enjoyed by BCGEU members under the collective agreement. For example, if'a ‘‘con- sumer”? laid a complaint against a social worker under the proposed Act, that social worker could be dismissed without recourse to the _ grievance procedure under the col- lective agreement. Another demand of the union was that the Act not further restrict promotional opportunities within the public service. ‘The Act takes on the responsibility for establish- ing qualifications and does not, therefore, allow the union to nego- tiate changes through job evalua- tion,” Finally, the BCGEU said that the Act must not provide for com- pulsory membership in the BCASW or any other professional association unless and until all BCGEU members affected are polled to determine their wishes in that connection. The response from the repres- sentatives of the BCASW and the Board of Registration was that they would take the BCGEU position “‘under advisement.” : The involvement of the provin- cial government in the preparation. of the new legislation is obvious, according to the BCGEU. Its May 7 circular stated: “Another problem we are facing is who is really involved in prepar- ing this legislation. Our informa- _tion indicates that very few of our members are aware of any such” legislation. Yet the deputy minister of human resources is playing a role, the BCASW is playing a ro and the registrar of the Board 0 Registration is playing a role. “One of the ministry of human resource’s projects for 1980 is ‘to replace the Social Workers Regis- tration Act with a new act and yet, in the union’s communication with Mr. Noble (John Noble, depu minister of human resources), he — denies his or the ministry’s involve- _ ment with the legislation. The min- istry has also granted $24,500tothe Board of Registration for — 1979-1980 ‘to subsidize the on- going administration of the present Act as well as sustaining the work — being carried out under the new — Act.’ ” t Some of our readers who have — chad very little to do with social — workers may feel that the questions — raised in this article are of no great importance to the labor move- ment. However if we see thismove __ by the provincial governmentasyet another potential threat to trade union rights, which we should, — then we will understand the con- cern of the BCGEU, and, of course, give support to that union — in its demand for full consultation and no surrender of trade union protection. VLC protests arson The Vancouver Labor Council Tuesday voted to express its con- cern to the Ontario government over the arson attack against the Communist Party headquarters in Toronto, June 24. The B.C. committee to rebuild the Buck-Bethune Centre reports more than $36,000 raised in this — province to date. :