LABOR

_ The awarding of two Expo contracts to
low-wage non-union contractors, while
they provide “unconscionable profits for
the non-union contractor” will result in a
net loss of income to the province of
$121,744, the Carpenters Union said last
week, basing its charge on a study pre-
pared by a leading trade union economist.
The study, carried out by Emil Bjarna-
son, director of Trade Union Research
Bureau, examined the Expo contracts for
the east gate complex, awarded to J.C.
Kerkhoff and Sons Construction, and a
module erection contract, awarded -to
Marbella Pacific, a consortium of non-
union contractors headed by Rempel
Concrete.
Bjarnason compared the non-union
contract price to the lowest union bid
submitted on the same work and worked

out the wage costs of each. Based on that
figure, he computed the taxes payable and
the “multiplier effect,” a figure used by
economists to determine the effects on
money spent generating more employ-
ment income and tax revenue.

Because of the substantially higher
wages paid by union contractors to their
employees, he said, the difference in the
wage content between the union and non-
union contracts is significant. And when
that difference is followed through the
economy, in income tax revenue generated
and the impact of the multiplier effect, the
result is a net loss ‘to the province of
$77,792 in the case of the module contract
and $43,951 on the east gate contract, he
said.

In both cases, the loss was a net figure
which took into account the difference in

bids between the union and non-union
contracts. In the module: contract, Mar-
bella-Pacific was only urder the lowest
union bid by $21,644; on the east gate
Kerkhoff underbid the union contractor
by $43,951.

But despite those minor differences in
bids, the differences in the wage costs to
the non-union and union firms was signif-
icant. In the case of the module contract,
the union firm would have put $644,895
more into wages than Marbella-Pacific.
On the east gate, the union bidder would
have paid out $535,459 more in wages
than Kerkhoff.

In percentage terms, Marbella pays
only 32 per cent of its total contract price
in wages, compared to 45 per cent for the
union contractor. “And we saw some
wage slips form the mudule erection job so

‘Non-union contracts cost taxpayers $121,744

we know what Marbella is paying,” Bja
nason noted.

“What it means is that Kerkhoffis mal
ing unconscionable profits — and nor
of that money is going into provinci
coffers — it’s all going to Kerkhoff
Carpenters Provincial Council secretat
Robson charged.

He also responded to comments t
Expo president Michael Bartlett that tl
same argument could be applied “‘to tl
whole union-non-union thing.” “Bartle
is absolutely right — the same thing ap|
lies to contracts at Vancouver Gener
Hospital and elsewhere.

“The idea that going with the lowe
saves money is a myth,” he said. “Not on
do the workers lose but taxpayers lose
well.”

a

Fightback should top B.C. Fed’s agend:

By SEAN GRIFFIN

When the B.C.:Federation of Labor con-
vention opened Nov. 28 last year, it was
probably the most closely watched event
throughout the province — for convention
‘delegates had been given the task of review-
ing the Socred government’s progress in
implementing the agreement reached two
weeks earlier ending the escalating strike by
Operation Solidarity.

Next week, when the 1984 B.C. Fed con-
vention opens, trade unionists across the
province will again be watching — but this
time they'll be looking for a sign that the
main trade union central is going to begin a
co-ordinated fightback against the continu-
ing anti-labor offensive of that same Socred
government.

The convention is likely to generate con-
siderable interest because of the contest for
the presidency betweeen incumbent Art

_Kube and Vancouver and District Labor
Council president Frank Kennedy.

But behind the election is probably the
key issue before the week-long meeting:
how the trade union movement is going to
stop the attack on trade union rights — and
on trade unionism itself — by the Social
Credit government and the province’s cor-
porate employers. : :

Tied up with that is federation action on
the unemployment crisis which both the
Socred government and the employers have
exploited to enact anti-labor legislation and
to force wage increases down to their lowest
levels in decades.

Kennedy is running on a program to
“revitalize the federation,” emphasizing res-
istance to the government attack, a pro-
gram of bargaining co-ordination and
better consultation with affiliates.

The drumfire of government legislation
over the past 10 months — the back-to-

~ work legislation against pulp workers and
transit workers, the amendments to the
provincial Labor Code, the designation of
Expo 86 as an “economic development
project — coupled with threatened gov-
ernment action to introduce “economic free
zones” and to ban public sector strikes has
put an urgent agenda on the table of every
convention delegate.

Just how serious is the situation facing
the labor movement is detailed in the report
of the legislative and research committee
which will be presented to the convention
next week.

“This past year has been marked by con-
tinuing massive levels of unemployment
and continuing Socred attacks on the rights
of workers,” the report states in its opening
paragraph,

“The economy remains in a depressed

state at both the national and provincial

levels. ..Recent forecasts indicate that 1985

will prove little different from preceding
years and we can probably look forward to
even higher levels of unemployment at the
national level.”

At the same time the report notes, “rec-
overy has ocurred for one group in our
society, big business. After-tax corporate
profits grew by 105 per cent in 1983 and
appear likely to grow by a further 25 per
cent in 1984. Financial institutions have
profited from usurious interest rates and
these profits will continue as long as interest
rates are kept high...

“Another reality is that B.C. government
policies have severely damaged the provin-
cial economy, something even Finance
Minister Hugh Curtis recently admitted.”

On the wage front, the report points out:
“Real wages have declined by almost 10 per
cent over the past eight years. With unem-
ployment remaining high, we can see little
hope for increases in income that are needed
to fuel consumer spending.”

And on the government’s legislation pro-
gram, it warns: “One of the central elements
of the government response has been to

continue its attempts to de-unionize this .

province. The latest suggestion emanating
from Victoria is to ban all public sector
strikes. It seems likely that we will see even

Analysis

partly because federation officers felt affil-
iates weren’t prepared to take action.

As a result, a program that Federation
president Art Kube acknowledged had been
dismissed as ‘too. meek and mild” by a
conference of affiliates went unchanged.

Similarly, the executive council has not
taken a co-ordinated approach either to
bargaining or strike support, leaving affil-
iates to make decisions on their own or to
co-ordinate support only if requested.

On economic policy, the federation offic-
ers have effectively criticized the govern-
ment’s disastrous economic policies,
emphasizing how they have aggravated
unemployment and bankruptcies. But the
important half of the equation — the pro-
motion of the federation’s own alternative
eocnomic program including the demand
for a shorter work week and public owner-
ship of resources — has been missing, des-
pite key resolutions calling for the

promotion of that program which were —

passed at the 1983 convention.

Obviously, much more is required if the
labor movement is to hold its own in-the
face of the attack outlined so graphically in
the convention’s legislative report.

The lesson in the Solidarity events last fall
was that the federation took the initiative to

‘ENE OEeE oer RCE EE ETT BOSE ER

more amendments to the Labor Code that
will weaken union rights in this province. ..

“Another policy being promoted by the
Fraser Institute and many B.C. cabinet min-
isters is the creation of free trade or eco-
nomic processing zones. What is really
meant are union-free zones where compan-
ies could run the work place the way they
did during the industrial revolution, with no
opposition and a totally compliant labor
force.”

In fact, in its 15 pages, the report carefully
outlines the scope of the unrelenting attack
that has been waged both on living stand-
ards and union rights by the government

and the employers since the last convention

and since the end of the Solidarity strike.

Yet despite the militant tone that was set
at last year’s convention — when delegates
united behind a program to defend teachers
jobs — the federation has not mounted any
significant fightback against that attack
over the past several months.

Although there was a demand from fed-
eration affiliates for a co-ordinated opposi-
tion to the amendments to the Labor Code
when they were introduced, the B.C. Fed
officers were reluctant to mount a cam-
paign, partly because of the NDP leadership
race then in progress and the desire not to
make labor confrontation an issue, and,

organize Operation Solidarity and united
the labor movement behind the 10-point
program of action against the government’s
legislative program. For the federation now
to back away from a central organizing role
in the face of a continuing government
attack, is having the effect of disuniting the
trade union movement.

The common message that has come
from the many trade union leaders the Trib-

une has interviewed over the past several .

months has been that their membership
would be prepared to take action — if they
could see that the leadership of the trade
union movement had a program laid out
and was attempting to mobilize affiliates to
put it into effect.

That is the major issue before the
convention — putting the federation again
at the front and centre of a fightback.

Because of the growing unemployment
crisis and the government’s continuing legis-
lative restrictions on labor rights, there are
likely to be several resolutions going before
this year’s convention calling for opposition
to threatened government legislation on
economic free zones; calling for action to
stop further amendments to the Labor
Code or extensions of the economic devel-

opment projects; and urging federation:

efforts to press the unemployment issue.

Together with the policies of past )
particularly those from the 1983 co!
tion, they will give the federation exec
council a powerful mandate of oppo’
to the Socred government and emp
attack. But the key is getting the leade
to use that mandate — and to devise a
strategies to fight back at every opportt

That doesn’t mean organizing a ge
strike and even necessarily mount
campaign on the scale of Operation SO
ity’s program last fall. But there are a!
sand tactics that can be used short o}
objective, including demonstrations,
publicized rallies and massed. picket
the disputes involving Labor Code aml
ments.such as the Slade and Ste
out.”

That also presumes a much more
co-ordinating role for the federation, '
that was effectively carried out by the!
ation under Ray Haynes and Len GU

And organizing the trade union me!
ship behind a fight to defend trade!
rights and oppose Socred policies is!
tial, not only for the immediate su:
the labor movement — but also fo
longer term goal of ousting this 0
ment. z

The recent byelection victories fo
NDP, particularly in Okanagan *
where the NDP candidate ended 32 y&
Socred rule, demonstrates that the be
opposition to the Social Credit gove
has widened since the May, 1983 elect
a direct result of the Solidarity evet™
the growing public rejection of Soci
restraint policies.

The civic election results in Vance
which COPE and the Civic Indepé
extended their support despite the
financed campaign mounted by the

_ backed NPA underscores that co
The election of a COPE majority 01
board, particularly, emphasizes
ance to Socred restraint that has devé

The possibilities are growing
defeat of the Socreds in the next
election. The cracks in the 1975
alliance are begining to show, as t1
vote indicated, and the base of su
Socred policies has narrowed.

Ousting the Socreds is going tO ®
broad popular opposition and the
ment of thousands of people into
against government policies, wi’
labor legislation, social service cuts:
tion cutbacks or human rights. It ¥
require that the New Democrat’
commit itself to repeal of the antl=

islation passed by the Socreds, t0.”
tion of social services and the P™
education funding.

Those were the ingredients
create the 1972 election victory fo’
and they mut be present if anotht
government is to be put out of of