By MIKE PHILLIPS TORONTO — Backed by pledges of support from the entire labor movement in this country, Canadian ‘autoworkers unanimously decided to tell their em- ployers, and the governments that serve them, that there’s absolutely no way the ‘Jnited Auto Workers are going to accept -oncessions in this year’s round of con- ract talks. Bob White, leader of the UAW’s 117,000 Canadian members laid it out for the U.S. multi-national corporations that run the auto industry in Canada in a statement following the two-day Canadian Collective Bargaining and Legislative Conference, May 8-9 “There’s no doubt that if the corpora- | tions approach the bargaining table in 1982 with a position of demanding con- cessions in wages and benefits that the workers in Canada will meet this con- frontation head on,”’ he said. The 1982 UAW Collective Bargaining and Legislative Conference was a water- shed in many important respects. With some 400 delegates, observers and guests it was the largest such conference ever organized by the Canadian UAW. As White’ pointed out in opening the conference, it was the first time that Canadian workers held a collective bargaining conference in which they drafted a bargaining strategy that was different from that adopted by U.S. autoworkers. In fact, it was the first time the Canadian section of the union took a bargaining position that ran completely counter to the direction being pursued in the U.S., where the UAW has accepted substantial concessions in wages and be- nefits. Unanimous Resolve The most important aspect of the con- ference, however, was the decision by the union to block the relentless drive by big business, its governments and media to make autoworkers open the door for wage Cuts and the slashing of living stan- dards for the entire Canadian working class. = In their unanimous resolve to reject all concessions in 1982 and beyond, Cana- dian autoworkers were backed by the solemn pledge of the two-million member Canadian Labor Congress to mobilize all-out support for their position. Visibly moved by the welcome he got from the workers he once led as Cana- dian UAW director, CLC president De- nnis McDermott won a standing ovation from the conference when he declared: “The UAW has a long and proud record of helping others in our labor movement who are in trouble. “Now it’s hurting, and it’s now time for others in-the Canadian labor move- ment and society in general to recipro- cate. Yours is a cause Canadians support and its my job as the president of the CLC —to mobilize that support. To that end I give my solemn pledge that we will do that,”” he said. The backing of the autoworkers’ work- ing-class position by both the New Dem- ocratic Party, through Ontario “NDP leader Bob. Rae's endorsation of the union’s stand at the conference May 9, and the Communist Party of Canada which projected a fightback against con- cessions by the UAW and the entire labor movement from the very first de- mands made on the workers by Chrysler, has welded the unity of the labor move- ment behind the UAW. It also gives the union and the labor movement a strong vehicle for uniting and mobilizing the general public behind the autoworkers in their important struggle. 1982 and Beyond The conference unanimously en- dorsed the “‘no concessions” strategy and projected among its economic de- mands for 1982 and beyond, continued insistence on the 3% annual improve- ment factor principle in wage increases, PACIFIC TRIBUNE—MAY 21, 1982—Page 6 LABOR 4 NO CONCESSIONS IN °82 TRIBUNE PHOTO —- MIKE PHILLIPS [MAND OBS OT LFARE! in a three-year contract, a cost of living adjustment (COLA) and the spread of an _ improved COLA formula throughout the union, and support for Chrysler workers” in their determination to catch up to Ford and General Motors workers for the wages and benefits they lost last year. Canadian Chrysler workers were among the angriest delegates to the 1982 conference. With a heavy U.S. vote, and just 50.5% of the Canadian workers in favor, Chrysler workers accepted an international agreement with wage con- cessions and the loss of some 19 personal paid holidays, (PPHs), in Jan. 1981. This year, the Canadian workers broke from the international bargaining council to set up a Canadian council along the same lines as Canadian Ford and GM workers. Chrysler workers, like Red Wilson of Local 444 in Windsor, noted that the concessions didn’t stop layoffs while the corporation's president Lee Iaccocca ‘‘is sitting with money in the bank. “Come September’, Wilson prom- ised, referring to the expiry of the cur- rent auto agreements, ‘‘we’re going for parity with Ford and GM and we’ re going to get back what that SOB stole from us a year ago.” We've Had Them Jerry Bastien, also from Local 444, urged any Ford or GM workers who we- ren’t sure the union’s fightback stance was the best course of action to ‘‘talk to your neighbor at Chrysler who may have voted for concessions and now one year later is losing his home because he isn’t making enough money to meet his mort- gage payments. ‘‘Workers can’t survive under this sys- tem we have now’’, Bastien said. ‘‘ Ford and GM workers have to look down the road to where their wages will be next year. If any of your brothers have any doubts about the need to fight con- _ cessions, tell them to talk to Chrysler workers; we've had them.”’ Other economic demands the union will project in the 1982 talks include: . maintenance of the current PPH program : with the union’s commitment to examine other altematives for achieving the shor-_ ter work week; comprehensive health and safety training during work hours, with earnings maintained, and under union instruction; upgrading in basic and supplemental pensions, increases in permanent disability pensions, early retirement and survivor options; sub- stantial improvements in supplementary unemployment benefits, (SUB), in- cluding automatic payment for the UIC waiting week, interim payment to cover the period leading to the first cheque, increased funding to the SUB fund, and portability of SUB credit units; and, a legal service plan, fully paid for by the employers. Non-Economic Demands Among the non-economic demands the union will go after: corrections of shortcomings in present occupational health and safety legislation with im-_ proved contract language; improved lan- guage ensuring that management can’t implement disciplinary measures or dis- charge without showing just cause; lan- guage limiting the corporations’ uni- _ lateral rights to close and move plants; protection against the negative effects of the introduction of technological change and the union’s right to be consulted be- fore technological change is introduced; and the inclusion of a ‘‘no dis- crimination’’ clause in the- contracts, with special reference to discrimination on sexual grounds. : In addition to affirmative action com- mittees and equal pay for work of equal value, the UAW committed itself to ex- _ tending parental leave to all its contracts including the principal of paternity and family responsibility leave. It is also committed to negotiating “‘company- paid, government-licensed child care, jointly administered by the union and the company,’’ providing full 24-hour infant and child care. The union firmly rejected profit-shar- ing as “‘a good step for the corporations, (but) a dangerous step backwards for working people.’ Bonuses on top of . acceptable, the. UAW; bargaining docu-— _ PMiority issue in Canada today. Rejecting _ policy means challenging corporate negotiated wages and benefits are ment noted, -but what the companies propose as a share of the profits means eroding collective bargaining gains and leaving wages tied to the manipulations of the corporations. Be Challenging Corporate Power On the legislative front the union focussed on jobs and job security as the wage controls and self-imposed con- cessions, the union called for ‘ta com- plete redirection’’ of government eco- nomic policy away from riding the coat tails of the U.S. economy and the policy of trying to bribe multi-national corpora- tions into developing a strong manu- facturing base in this country. *“‘We must take our natural wealth out of the hands of private corporations and put it under social ownership (as we began to do with Petro-Can)’’, the document stressed. “Calling for a change in government power in our society.” The UAW’s campaign for Canadian — content legislation, compelling foreign auto makers to re-invest the equivalent of 85% of the value of their car sales in Canada in the form of made-in-Canada parts and assembly, was also discussed. Alan Pickersgill, a parts plant worker, welcomed the Canadian content prop- osal as an important short term measure, but pointed out that the crisis in auto was built right into the economic system. — He also observed that while the achievement of such legislation would be good for autoworkers, the advances in technological change and robotics in the industry could significantly limit the number of actual jobs that would be created. “I think its time we began directing our attention toward public ownership and democratic control of the auto industry so that auto workers can have direct con- trol over the development of the industry in our own best interests’’, he said.