Sands of metal workers march in Stuttgart, West Germany to

%* BF ssn

t employers’ tough stand on wage negotiations. The unions
‘their original wage demand of 11°/) down to 7.9 — but the
‘won't budge from their 6°/) offer and have locked out workers.

teel corporation s profits
w as labor force declines

|By DON STEWART

ILTON — With negotia-
In the steel industry in
coming up in 1972, the

of the Abel forces in
WA, which are accommo-
themselves to the posi-
{the giant steel corpora-
fe the USA, who are call-
7 increased productivity
less employees, should
as a warning to steel-
*s in Canada.

'€ is a large market for
pening up in the socialist
and in the newly-devel-
Countries. The attempt by
el industry to maintain
tend their profits, and still
Vantage of this market at
nse of the workers in
ustry is being supported
ident Abel of the USWA.
sence of this policy, of
11s that the newly acquir-
hnology and automated
€s in steel production,
of improving the posi-
the working class will be
9 increase the profits of
1 barons...

te 1969 steel negotiations,
in Hamilton used a varia-
this same theme. An in-
Settlement was forced
the throats of the mem-
. after 10 weeks on the
line. The company said
ley were extended to the
Md that any larger packet
Cripple the economy. Im-
‘ly following the settle-
they were granted the
© increase the price of
Md virtually wipe out any
Ins by the workers.
production in Canada
‘om 10 million tons in
9 12,154,000 tons in 1970.
Production was 4,801,000
'n 1970 compared with
tons in 1969. And
Profits were $55,976,000
) and $31,070,000 in 1969.
Means that after taxes,
ministration — and ex,
—Stelco realized a clear
‘f $2,600 from each of the
€mployees in its chain.
70 Stelco had an average
of 21,497 employees,
€d with 21,792 in 1969. In
this drop in employment
Tealized a $24,906,000 in-
n profits in 1970.
' projection for the future
S very clear when in the
‘ment’s own words, in
Annual Report of 1970,
Y the following: “The
hy’s profit margins are
Satisfactory and efforts
“ase productivity and re-
It costs are being inten-

Le spbG .oPovatice

~¢

Obvious that unless the.

workers through their union
fight for and win a voice and
some say in the institution of
automated and technological im-
provements and further innova-
tions in steel production, more
workers will be thrown out on
the streets,

Stelco is introducing in its Hil-
ton St. works three basic oxy-
gen furnaces (BOF). Each of
these vessels has a capacity
ranging from 180 to 200 tons.
Each heat takes an average of
35 minutes.

At an estimated approximation
of 14 heats per 8-hour shift, and
allowing for one vessel of the
three to be in repair, this means
a production of 2x 14x 190 tons
or 5,320 tons of steel per 8-hour
shift. This department will em-
ploy about 275 workers.

When this basic oxygen furn-
aces department is put into
operation early in 1972 the pres-
ent #2 open hearth plant will be
phased out. It has nine furnaces
and employs 930 workers.

These furnaces produce a heat
in 64% hours and produce an
average of 160 tons per furnace.
The nearest figures I could come
by, indicate that this department
presently produces 2,100 tons of
steel per shift.

BOF will have 275 workers
producing 5,160 tons of steel in
8 hours. The open hearth meth-
od has 930 workers producing
2,100 tons in the same 8-hour
period. ;

As with any capitalist enter-
prise, Stelco, this large Cana-
dian monopoly, does not propose
to use this increased productiv-
ity for the good of the country
or to achieve the wellbeing of
its workers. They see it as a
means to increase their profits
and power. Their projection is
to increase their steel tonnage
from 414 million tons to six
million tons in 1972.

In the annual report Stelco
indicates that their competitive
position in world markets is en-
dangered because of Canadian
steel prices. However, they reg-
istered their biggest year in ex-
ports in 1970. In the upcoming
negotiations it would be surpris-
ing if Stelco doesn’t advance the
spurious proposition that in the
interests of national wellbeing
steelworkers should be willing
to accept small wage increases
and agree to increased produc-
tivity. ;

What is needed now is a pro-
gram worked out by the union
leadership which would limit
management’s rights, a program
which could have as its core the

fight for an immediate shorter
,;work week. |

LABOR SCENE

by Bruce Magnuson

The issue in the Douglas Air-
craft strike at Malton, Ontario,
was the attempt by the McDon-
nell-Douglas Corporation of the
USA to impose U.S. President
Nixon’s wage freeze on Cana-
dian workers. The company also
seeks an emasculated contract
to weaken the union and to open
the door to speed-up, increased
productivity and profits at the
workers expense.

Two weeks ago, this column
called for wide support of Cana-
dian labor to beat back this as-
sault by a United States cor-
poration. At that time the one
and only monetary offer this
company had made, and which
came well within the Nixon Ad-
ministration’s guidelines, was
turned down by the strikers by
a two-to-one majority in a sec-
ret ballot taken Nov. 18.

This was a democratic expres-
sion of the wishes of the mem-
bers of UAW Local 1967. But
the decision did not go down
well with the officers of the In-
ternational Union’s Executive
Board in Detroit, and with UAW
International President Leonard
Woodcock, ‘who goes along with
the principle of a wage freeze
and, indeed, sits as a member
of President Nixon’s Pay Board
in the USA.

Mr. Woodcock not only refus-
ed to arrange a meeting with the
Douglas Corporation following
the striking production workers’
rejection of the company’s offer
as totally unacceptable, but
charged that the Nov. 18 vote
by secret ballot was influenced
by intimidation. : :

(To keep the record straight,
it should be mentioned here that
the negotiating committee did
not consider the company’s offer
to be serious enough to submit
it to the membership for a vote,
but did so upon the insistence
of the International officers in
Detroit. The Committee recom-
mended rejection of the settle-
ment offer and were sustained
by the secret vote of the mem-
bership. The International of-
ficers recommended acceptance
and were rebuked by the re-
sults.)

The subsequent refusal by the
International officials of the
UAW to abide by the democra-

US. union chiefs impose
Nixon freeze in Canada

tic decision of the members of
Local Union 1967, but to pro-
ceed to the organization via un-
derhanded methods of a “back-
to-work” movement, constituted
open strikebreaking.

As a direct result of this
shameful posture by the Inter-
national Union the company nat-
urally refused to budge from its
original offer here at Malton,
whereas in California the par-
ent company has since nego-
tiated a much higher monetary
settlement with its U.S. em-
ployees. (For instance, a Grade
6 worker here was offered 39-
cent increase for the first year
of a three-year contract, includ-
ing cost-of-living adjustment al-
ready negotiated in the previous
contract but not paid. This
means that the new monetary
offer in Canada for this particu-
lar worker is actually a 22-cent
increase for the first year, as
compared to a 51-cent first year
increase ‘to the U.S. worker in
California doing the same type
of work.)

That is why another member-
ship meeting was called again
for Dec. 10 of Douglas Aircraft
strikers to discuss this informa-
tion and decide what to do. At
this meeting the local union pre-
sident and some members of
the local executive were in favor
of another secret vote being
taken on the original offer,
whereas the negotiating com-
mittee, with the sole exception
of the local president, stood by
the original decision.

By a show of hands the major-
ity of 3,500 strikers — out of
4,000 — attending the meeting
refused to rescind the outcome
of the Nov. 18 secret ballot vote
on the original offer and to pro-
ceed to take another vote on
the matter of a return to work
based on that offer.

Less than two hours after this
meeting the International Exe-
cutive Board in Detroit sum-
moned the top local officers and
bargaining committee to a meet-
ing in Detroit the following day,
Dec. 11, for the purpose of show-
ing cause why the strikers
should not return to work.

Explaining the method to be
used in forcing the strikers back

to work, Dennis McDermott,
Canadian director of the UAW
and international vice-president,
was reported as having stated
that the mechanics of terminat-
ing the strike would be to place
the local under trusteeship, re-
move all the officers and impose
an administrator on Local Union
1967. Naturally the International
officers would prefer a less open-
ly dictatorial way, but undemo-
cratic nevertheless.

This kind of completely un-
democratic and uncalled for in-
terference by the U.S. Interna-
tional officers in the affairs of
a Canadian local of the union is
what the mass media report as
“being put on the carpet” for
allegedly “blocking a_ secret
vote.” In other words, the brazen
interference with the democratic
right of the Canadian workers
to take their own decisions is
being presented as the epitome
of democratic procedure. Indeed,
the whole report of the strikers’

“meeting tends to present the

Strikers in the worst possible
light, split and simply the ‘“‘cap-
tives” of a handful of “agita-
tors” who do not give a damn
about democratic procedures as
long as they get their way.

What the situation actually
shows is the strikers’ determi-
nation to get both economic and
other vitally important contract
improvements. Instead of help-
ing in achieving this objective,
top officers of the UAW seek to
dictate terms of settlement,
which constitutes intolerable in-
terference in the strike situation.
It is made doubly unpalatable
inasmuch as it treats the Cana-
dian members as some kind of
second rate citizens in their own
country, subject to control and
supervision by union officers
across the border in the United
States.

The developments in_ this
strike have presented Canadian
UAW members, without excep-
tion, with the choice of either of
meekly accepting a secondary
role or of standing up and fight-
ing for their autonomous rights
to handle their own affairs in
accordance with true democratic
principles and on the basis of
their needs here in Canada.

EK YoUSAID #350"

~—