Ue Pees De Sele PS TE VW Ot) Gm Pom tm Gee 1 1 Om PC RPSmen Drm Durr OUEST n'y Pererrw fwrlereneow Prenmr erro P71

cotabetmtmictemmnatmsae

Pim er Ae

at

A Special Pacific Tribune Feature

 Lebor’s Case For Higher
_ Wages and Shorter Hours)

S there a case for wage available, they show a con-, tually suffered a wage cut. .
gains in the present period| tinuing upward trend. | Only that part of oe aes Ce 2
crisis? | which exceeds 3% cents can A I
— Unemployment is not the re- actually be counted as a gain. @ The case for wage increases and shorter |
Must unions accept the em-j|sult of business losses. it <1 e ° ° e
ployer position et higher| the cause (through reductions| Since the Gordon Commis- hours is overwhelming, as this article .
wages at this time can only | in staff and therefore of cost)| sion estimated that production sh ows
make matters worse? |of rising profits. per man-hour in Canada rises ©
at four percent per year, a
There is a danger that many| Conversely, . unemployment} Wage increase which would :
union leaders oe eee <e will not be overcome by re- a oe a ee @ In the past year B.C. workers suffered .
above questions in the affirm-| ducing wages and thereby fur-| Hon’ Pus dye tess i pAGe = i
epee, Cutnes than to uphold|ther curtailing thé purchasing) of the product —— which in a 312-cent cut in wages because of ths |
the traditional labour position| power of the community. It) oler pverucrny Oe : : oa eee ;
that it is precisely at v time|may on the other hand be mit- ee in eC oe ESE rise in living costs alone. That doesn t
n lovment that payrolls igated by distributing some of| Position as se ® ~ °
sees iced - ee the swollen profits among the amount to 5% per cent. include the latest tax increases.
purchasing power and get the| wage earners in the form of S
wheels of industry rolling; higher wages. S With rising production workers Wout i
again. ‘ Tr. have been few if
any spectacular wage in- need at least 5'/2 percent more just f0]/
The present unemployment) yT is a hoary old fallacy that, creases won in the past year. ;
situation is not due to the fail- ; unions can only win wage| The difficulty of waging a be in the same relative position as last
ure of business to make prof-| increases by demonstrating aj struggle under conditions of
its as usual. That is obvious|rise in the cost of living. If| general unemployment, and in year.
from inspection of the profit|that were so, workers could| the face of strong propaganda
figures in the accompanying] never gain any benefit from| from the bosses and the press ‘
table, which show one com-) higher wages, and the fruits of} seeking to put the blame for|/]| @ Profits continue to shoot upward as|
pany after another increasing] rising productivity would. go unemployment on wages, has -
profits, in some cases by near-| entirely to the-boss. Which is,| kept most bargaining within you will see on this pa ge.
ly 100 per cent, in the recent} of course, what he desires. a range of fairly low increases. 5 :
period.
It is a fact, however, that Nevertheless, unions which S Some unions have already proven that 3
Profit figures for 1960 are} living costs (i.e., the Consumer] were prepared to put up a J
not yet available for most} Price Index) have risen by 1% fight have demonstrated that higher wages and shorter hours can be i
companies, but the 1959 re-| percent in the past year. With gains can be won. Outstanding ;
sults for the majority show] an average B.C. wage of $2.22, examples were the grain work- won this yea r. 4
that layoffs in 1960 were not| this means that any group of ers’ settlement of 2314 cents :
the result of past losses. And| workers who win less than 314| per hour, and the longshore- = |

cents this year will have ac-

where the 1960 figures are

men’s settlement at 16 cents
plus the guaranteed annual
wage. There are many other
examples.

The fact is that despite all
the gloom and pessimism, the
average hourly wage in B.C.
rose from $2.13 in November
1959 to $2.22 a year later. The
trend must be continued.

HE bargaining program

which is indicated in the
economic circumstances of the
present period, and which the
trade union movement has rec-
ognized as a necessary one, is
the achievement of the 35-
hour week.

At the end of the year, more
than 20 percent of all: B.C.
workers covered by unemploy-
ment insurance were register-
ed with the U.I.C. as unem-
ployed and reporting regular-
ly. Nationally, the total is
more than 17 percent (754,117
claimants out of 4,300,000 in-
sured workers). The figures
for January and February,
when they become available,
will certainly be worse.

Neither in Canada nor in
the United States is there at
the moment any indication of
policies or trends which could
reverse the present unemploy-
ment crisis and start industry
expanding again. Therefore, so
long as government and em-
ployers fail to provide any
solution, the trade union|

movement must assume that)
jobs must be found for th@}
workers within the prese?’7
total of employment, an 7
jective which could only be 8°}
complished by reducing wo a
ing hours. The high profit
made by the employers in@!)
cate clearly enough that it C7

See LABOR, page7 |

PROFITS ZOOM

ee ee

Here are some examples of profits made by wel
known B.C. corporations, (Figures are before tax, unle™ |

otherwise indicated.)

McMillan Bloedel - 1960 1959 1958
Powell River (9 g
mos. - after tax) $18,518,724 $17,106,743 ;

B.C. Forest Prod. 7,235,044 6,624,503 4

Columbia Cellulose 2,904,768 409,50 |

C.M.& S. 26,804,310 20,717,899

B.C. Sugar 3,334,257 3,015,335

B.C. Telephone .
(after tax) 7,245,647 6,672,300 —

March 3, 1961—PACIFIC TRIBUNE—Page "|