AM Ly I iat | | Mt | | Lessons of OFL convention Workers must press policies to the Left _ 4) —_ By WILLIAM STEWART One thousand delegates repre- senting over 600,000 trade union- ists gathered in Niagara Falls Nov. 2-3-4 at the 14th annual convention of the Ontario Fede- ration of Labor in the midst of one of the most critical periods in Canadian history. An examination of the records of that convention shows it failed to live up to its respon- sibility. The blame lies not on the delegates but on the execu- tive leadership of the OFL. By a slim majority the conven- gave its unqulified blessing iblic Order (Temporary ) Act-1970—a feat un- a maby almost any other iF nada, except from the extreme ro It almost totally ignored the unempijyment situation in On- tario glthough the crisis is the mostseph since 1961 and will likely exceed the proportions of 1961 this winter. . Not a word was uttered about , the continuing war in Vietnam and Canadian complicity in it. ' The growing threat to our country’s independence found its way to the floor only through a resolution deploring the alie- nation of our beaches. It adopted a statement on housing which was as approving of the Ontario government as it was critical.. It literally threw bouquets at Robarts for proposed changes in Ontario Medicare. “Cherry-picking” - Instead of rejecting the On- tario government’s anti-labor Bill 167 out of hand as it deserv- ed, it cherry-picked the bill pro- posing to accept this part, reject ‘that part, thus sowing confusion in the ranks of labor about the overall intent of the bill. It failed to give any lead as to how the bill was to be opposed by the unions (though Archer, under sharp pressure from the floor, made his usual demagogic speech in which he appeared to approve strong militant meas- ures to defeat the bill). It gave President David Archer a totally undeserved ac- clamation, and returned last year’s administration intact al- though they had failed miser- ably to provide the kind of leadership so sorely needed over the past year. It was not a convention which united Ontario’s mighty trade unions in the critical battles for democracy, against monopoly, for jobs and for the independ- ence of our country. It was not a united convention. Large opposition At times, and on crucial is- sues, close to a majority of the delegates rose in opposition to the leadership. It was evident that the temper of the delegates was such that had there been effective, militant leadership the vast majority of the convention could have been united into a powerful voice which would have been heard loud and clear ‘in Queen’s Park, on Parliament Hill and by the struggling mil- lions in Ontario looking for a clear alternative to the elements of monopoly crisis gripping our province. These are the unvarnished facts. ' With a thinly-disguised new War Measures Act, under the title Public Order (Temporary Measures) Act, being debated in Ottawa—with the NDP in mud- dled confusion as to how to ap- proach it and under sharp pres- sure from the government and the bourgeois press. and its own right wing — the OFL was in a strategic positiom to speak out. It was duty bound to align itself sharp and clear for civil rights, with the labor and farm move- ment in Quebec which had un- animously opposed the measure Labor costs are not \ . 7] Frankenstein monster “Labor costs aren’t the Frank- enstein monsters they’re often cracked up to be.” That quote does not come from your favorite labor publica- tion but The Wall Street Journal in-a lead article. The WSJ noted that business executives frequently cry that la- bor costs are soaring out of con- trol and “dooming the economy to ever-worse inflation.” However, the businessmen’s newspaper says that these execu- tives never mention: “Labor costs, far from soaring, are only inching upward nowadays. Some analysts, in fact, predict labor costs may soon begin to decline.” The Journal says that the widely publicized reports of large hourly increases at the col- lective bargaining table ‘‘do not give a true picture of the trend of labor costs. They show only what has been happening to wage rates—and then only wage rates to unionized employees.” It is a fact, the Journal con- tinues, that pay to workers has been getting bigger but also that “Jabor-cost Increases have been getting smaller.” In the last few years labor costs have been declining to a point that “in the last three PACIFIC TRIBUNE — NOV. 20 — PAGE 8 months the Index has barely budged, rising a miniscule one- fifth of one per cent,” the paper says. The impact of The Wall Street Journal article should be felt at the collective bargaining table. It refutes a carefully nurtured argument of management that it must hold down pay increases because of rising labor costs. A number of reasons were list- ed for the labor cost picture: e Productivity of most work- ers is on the rise after a period of no gain. e Premium pay such as over- time work has been declining. e While pay of union mem- bers generally has gone’ up sharply this has not been true of non-union workers. On the latter point the Journal quotes Sam Nakagama, chief economist of Argus Research Corp., an investment advisory firm in the Wall Street area, “While union workers are win- ning big pay hikes this year the rest of the workers are generally . getting much smaller boosts or no increases at all.” This quote could well be used by union after union in organizing campaigns this year. (United Rubber Worker) as a massive infringement of the civil rights of the Quebec work- ets, first, and of all Canadian workers. It could have provided the determination which was necessary to stiffen the opposi- tion of the NDP members in Ot- tawa. Aid Right-Wing Instead, it did the opposite. It came down on the side of the most right-wing elements in the NDP, fearful of losing a vote through opposing the measure and prepared to throw principle overboard. It now appears very likely that the NDP majority in Ottawa will oppose the Act. What a disser- vice the OFL leadership did to labor and democracy- On Bill 167 the leadership brought in a substitute for the 12 resolutions submitted by lo- cal unions. The substitute reso- lution listed a 10-point charter of labor’s rights along the lines adopted by the OFL two years ago, and then tucked a resolve on the end proposing to amend, delete and otherwise change Bill 167 to include these measures. This completely ignores the facts that Bill 167 in its entirety is in complete opposition to the 10-point program put forward, and that the only way to win the Charter is to begin by de- feating Bill 167, not amending it. ~The Soft Soap This same argument was used by the top leadership to soften opposition to the Rand Report. It ‘was fortunately opposed by the overwhelming majority of unions and the Rand Report was withdrawn. The resolution also continues the fairy tale that the bill is “primarily designed to hamstring the unions in the con- struction industry.” It is no such thing. It is primarily aimed at the heart of the entire trade union movement, while at the same time peeling off a little more strongly against the con- struction trades. The weaknesses of the actual resolutions before the OFL are in themselves a stinging criticism of the leadership. There were only 103 resolu- tions before. the convention. Twenty-nine of them were on Workmen’s Compensation, 12 on labor legislation, 10 dealing with safety, 10 with internal policy and the remainder ranging over federal, provincial, municipal and internal constitutional matters. Communists and left NDP’ers must self-critically accept their share of responsibility for the fact the resolutions that came before the 14th OFL convention were not equal to the problems facing it and the whole of or- ganized labor in Ontario. Treated Lightly? The small number of resolu- tions and their failure to reflect the gut issues facing Ontario workers are a clear indication that the affiliates of the OFL do not take that body very serious- ly. How else, for example, can one explain why not a single local union or labor council in Northern or North Western On- tario submitted a resolution on Northern Development, at a per- iod when there is an almost des- perate situation facing the peo- ple in that area. How come not a single resolution aimed at solv- ing the jobs and unemployment crisis? ; The Federation executive it- self, aware of the weaknesses of ‘resolutions from locals acted, not to fill the vacuum left by this unfortunate fact, but to take advantage of what shaped up to be a very desultory convention by strengthening their‘ own con- trol over. the Federation. Having failed.several times to change the convention from an annual event to a semi-annual event, the leadership pushed through a resolution to hold elections only every second year, while continuing to meet an- nually. There is little doubt that two years from now, when the next leadership convention takes place, delegates will be faced with a resolution to make the conventions two year events, moving the OFL still further away from the membership it is supposed to represent. Raise Own Pay Another constitutional resolu- tion the executive remembered to bring forth upped the presi- dent’s. salary from $14,000 to $18,000, and the secretary’s from $12,000 to $16,000. The extent of the opposition to the leadership was expressed in the balloting. Gordon Lambert, who ran for one of the 12 vice- presidencies, received 418 votes even though his responsibilities as chairman of the striking GM workers’ Canadian negotiating team made it impossible for him to attend the convention. Chris- tine Bennett, a relatively un-' known delegates from the Steel- workers Union received 432 votes and Andrew Simko, from the CBRT in Windsor, picked up 344. For the elected twelve offi- cers, the top vote was 706 and the bottom vote 587. When one notes that the vot- Ontario workers in peril By MEL DOIG On Nov. 13 the Ontario legis- lature passed the anti-strike and union-busting new amendments to the Labor known as Bill 167. The Tory government forced through its bill at this time on the urgent insistence of the con- struction industry bosses, who face 1971 bargaining with over 90,000 Ontario building work- ers, most of them in the build- ing and construction. trades unions. Ontario’s new anti-labor legis- lation was passed 10 days after the Ontario Federation of Labor convention adopted a resolution on Bill 167 which demanded two things: that the bill include most of the Labor Bill of Rights ear- lier OFL conventions had en- dorsed, and that it be amended -to delete sections “not favorable to the union movement.” Earlier, the labor movement had called for throwing out Bill 167 in its entirety, and adoption of a Labor Bill of Rights. Delegates to the OFL conven- : tion called for a mighty demon- stration against Bill 167—to in- clude masses of both industrial and building trades workers — when it came up for final read- ing in the legislature. ; The Robarts government had already seen the powerful op- position to its bill when over 20,000 workers demonstrated Oct. 14 in Queen’s Park against it. That demonstration consisted mainly of building trades work- ers who quit work to take part in it. time to hit it with a flood % Relations Act, — ing procedure in the OFL lt quires all delegates to vote 10 twelve candidates it is quilé clear that the Archer machine less than omnipotent and thal | there is widespread dissatisfac tion with the leadership of th® | - OFL. | What is required is a deter mined effort by the left, to com ml pel the OFL executive to ste? into the mighty battle facing O™ tario workers and to provide the kind of dynamic leadership tha! | ! only labor can and must giV@ | This can and will be forthcomin& | Labor cannot and must not bé hamstrung for the next tW?] years while mighty issues a being decided. The ways must Dé found, as they were around thé Rand Report, Medicare, and Bil 167, to push the OFL leadership into action wherever possiblé - and where impossible, to mov? | around them. ; No Defeatism! 4 Defeatism and cynicism mus not be allowed to develop in th? wake of what must be regarded as one of the lowest level trad’ union conventions in many years. This would be playing in! the hands of the right-wing. — The OFL belongs to the mol than 600,000 members in its col stituent unions. It represents al most half the organized strengt! of the CLC in Canada, It is thé task of the left and all hones! trade unions to push the strug’ | gle for militant anti-monopoly policies between now ‘and nex! year’s convention, and at thal resolutions which will turn thé | , OFL into the militant Ontari? |; parliament of labor it must |, become. : : fe ( ( ip Following the OFL conventio® | | the government moved swift) | t to push the bill through, ove! } | riding most of the amendment | to it proposed by both NDP af Liberals. ~ ; With its adoption, the hand®] of Ontario employers have bee? strengthened in collective bat gaining. As the Ontario Provil” cial Committee of the Commu") nist Party of Canada stated | September, “Bill 167 come down hardest on constructio®} workers, but it aimed at th® heart of collective bargaining "| Ontario.” Ontario workers are noW |! faced with anti-labor legislatio? } of the same kind as Bill 33 if B.C., Bill 290 in Quebec and Bill 2 in Saskatchewan. This neW legislation is part of the wholé assault in Canada on the dem cfatic rights of labor, on thé civil rights of the people. It ® part of the drive of reaction 1 push politics in Canada to thé right by use of repressive legi* | lation. Bill 167 has passed into law: Organized labor in Ontario— || through trade union locals and councils — should demand — thé OFL now call for a great united | struggle for a Labor Bill ©} Rights, for rescinding th@| amendments to the Labor Rela’ | tions Act. In 1971, the Robarts goverl \ ment and its pro-boss strike | ‘breaking legislation must be d@ | feated. , sll: