Organized labor in this province
is concerned about the campaign to
eliminate union security provisions
in collective agreements. The
majority of unions in B.C. have
clauses in their agreement to
ensure that the union is able to
collect dues by payroll deduction,
as a condition of employment.
These union security. clauses
usually require that a new em-
ployee shall become a member of
the union within a stipulated period
or that he must be a member in
good standing before he is hired.
The underlying principle is that all
who share directly in the benefits
‘| won by the union must share the
responsibility for maintaining the
union.

LABOR
COMMENT

BY JACK PHILLIPS

The nature of the construction
industry is such, for example, that
the majority of workers frequently
change their jobs as projects are
completed. Without compulsory
union membership and the hiring
hall, construction companies could
hire a new crew every time a new
job was started. There would soon
be long lines of workmen hoping to
be selected by the boss for a few
days’ work. That’s the way it was
on the waterfront before the
longshoremen’s union was _ suc-
cessful in establishing control over
hiring.

The opponents of union security
in British Columbia present
themselves in false colors. They
say they are advocates of the
“right to work’, but they. never
raise their voices in protest against
mass unemployment.

The International Woodworkers
of America has published a 54-page
booklet entitled Do You Really
Want the Right to Work? On page
28, there is a selection from a
presentation made in 1965 by an
aide to Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.
to the Special House Sub-
committee on Labor of the U.S.
Congress.

The following quotations are
appropriate for the British
Cehunhia scene:

“They (the right-to-work
proponents) have refurbished the
old ‘open shop concept’ and, em-
ploying the techniques of Madison
Avenue hucksters, are now selling
the new slogan ‘right to work’.

‘Do these laws _ provide
American workers with any
guarantee of employment? They
do not. Do any of these right to
work laws embody a code of fair
employment practices? They do
not. Do these laws attempt to
determine fair wages, provide
decent hours of labor, or -other
terms and conditions of em-
ployment? They do not. Do they
provide for an_ equitable
distribution of work or guarantee
that layoffs be in inverse order of
seniority? They do not. Do they
provide for vacations with pay,
disability benefits and retirement
pensions? They do not. What they
co they do? In their commonest
form they prohibit any kind of
union security. They make it
impossible for labor-management
agreements to provide for union
security.”

Phil Gaglardi, a gospel preacher
who was_a prominent member of
the Socred cabinet under W. A. C.
Bennett, addressed an Abbotsford
meeting of the Independent Con-
tractors and Businessmen of
British Columbia (the major right-
to-work pressure group in B.C.) in
April, 1976. A Fraser Valley
newspaper quoted him as follows:
‘‘A man should be able to be a non-
union worker if he wants it that
way and not be forced to join a
union. God gave Adam the
prerogative of choice. The whole
basis of our, way of life is based on
spiritual principles.”” Ed Rempel,
who introduced Gaglardi, ex-
plained those spiritual principles
when he recalled that Gaglardi’s
son Bob had been the first since the
1930’s to build a high rise in Van-
couver without union workers.

Gaglardi told the meeting that
the workers should be paid what
they are worth and be proud of that
fact. He meant the employer
should be free to pay as little as he
can get away with an the worker
should smile and say “‘thank you,
boss.”’ Gaglardi received a stan-
ding ovation from the 25 members
and their guests when he told them
to sign up 50,000 members and
march to Victoria to demand the
elimination of union security

F

™~

PHIL (front); BOB GAGLARDI...

“right-to-work” laws.

provisions from the provincial
labor code.

That position on union security
had a lot of support at the recent

convention of the provincial back. On March 1 the Nelson News union individual to undermine the

Socreds. A resolution calling upon
the B.C. provincial government to
introduce right to work legislation
was narrowly defeated by 233-217,
after labor minister Allan Williams
warned that such legislation would
“destroy the democratic rights of
union members and lead to serious
confrontation.”

I have no doubt that Williams
spoke for the majority in the
cabinet, because a number of
delegates who are prominent in
B.C. political life argued that the
enactment of such legislation
would alienate organized labor and
play into the hands of the NDP.
However, it is significant that the
reporters at the convention saw
one cabinet minister, economic
development minister Don
Phillips, vote for the resolution.

It is also noteworthy that
premier Bill Bennett left the
convention hall shortly before the
vote. It appears he wanted to keep
his options open without being on
record as having voted for either
side. ;

However, the convention clearly
showed its right wing bias when it
united around a resolution in favor
of prohibiting strikes in essential
services, including ferries, police,
firemen, hospital employees,

vista

among those pressing for

ambulance attendants and those in

water, electricity, gas and oil

services.
But organized labor is fighting

reported that the Nelson-Trail and
District Labor Council held a
meeting of 200 union members in
Castlegar to combat
proliferation of right to work
laws.”

Cy Stairs, vice-president of the
-B.C. and Yukon Building Trades
Council, told the Castlegar meeting
that building contractors have
united to stop the growth of unions
and support the right to work in-
terests. Stairs stated that in his
opinion, the government would not
introduce such _ legislation
“because they are afraid all hell
will break loose.’’ He said that
instead the government has been
making piecemeal attempts in that
direction.

Tom Fawkes, author of the [WA
booklet referred to earlier, told the
meeting he had travelled ex-
tensively in the southern U.S.A. to
study the effects of right to work
laws. He reported that wages are
lower, profits are higher and social
conditions are below national
averages. ‘‘We’re not going to
accept a bad American law’, he
said. “It hasn’t been any good for
the U.S. and it sure isn’t any good
for Canada.”

Marv McLean, president of

the’

<3

Local 480 of the Steelworkers in
Trail, addressed the Castlegar
meeting and wondered out loud
why Rossland-Trail MLA Chris
D’Arcy, NDP, was not present.
Whatever the reason for D’Arcy’s
absence, it should be remembered
that while the NDP government of
Dave Barrett enacted some
progressive legislation, its record
in respect to the labor code was a
disappointment to organized labor.

The legislative committee report
to the 1975 convention of the B.C.
Federation of Labor contained the
following in dealing with certain
aspects of Bill 84 passed by the
Barrett government over the
objections of organized labor:
“Particularly dangerous is the

provision that no person who has | ©

been expelled from their union for
violating the constitution by

belonging to another union can lose |”

their job. This interference with]
union security clauses represents a
very grave danger since it opens
the door to further ‘right-to-work’
legislation. The provision also
offers an easy way for any. anti-

union and avoid union membership
in spite of union shop provisions
negotiated in collective
agreements.’’ (The reference to
undermining the union drew at-
tention to a clause in the labor code
permitting the opting out from
union membership on the basis of
religious beliefs.)

Out of about two dozen amend-
ments to the labor code proposed
by the Federation in 1975, only
three were incorporated into Bill
84.

With the election of a reactionary
Socred government in Victoria, the
question of uniting the trade union
movement and all left and
progressive forces assumed new
importance.

The struggle against the right-to- 3

work threat is a good place to
begin. The B.C. Federation of

Labor has organized a special |

seminar on that subject to be held
in Capilano College on Saturday,
March 18. The continuing struggle
against the threat from the right
will have the full support of the
Communist Party. It deserves the
full support of the NDP, including
the members elected to the
provincial legislature who can play
a key-role because they are the
official opposition.

Drive to cut labor costs underlies B.C. Hydro stance

Continued from pg. 1

crews. The IBEW has called

Hydro’s stance ‘‘irresponsible’’

and possibly tantamount to an

illegal lock out since the IBEW is
> not officially on strike.

Socred labor minister Allan
Williams made it clear Wednesday
that the govenment would use
essential services legislation if the
strike gets out of hand. “The
government and the crown cor-
poration are one and the same and
the corporation can take unfair
advantage of its own self-serving
legislation,’ B.C. Federation of
Labor secretary Len Guy
described the situation, also on
Wednesday.

The anti-union, provocative
stance of Hydro was noted this
week even by the Vancouver Sun
which editorially rapped Hydro for
its ‘interest in a strike’. A
prolonged dispute will spell higher
profits for Hydro, the Sun
speculated on its motives, but
pointed out that the ‘“‘publicly
owned corporation should be
judged by the standard of service it
provides and not necessarily by the
profits it earns.”

Since its establishment as a
crown corporation by the former

ATU STRIKERS... Oak

Street depot.

Socred government, Hydro has
performed the role of providing
cheap energy resources to in-
dustry, while charging consumers
higher rates. Hydro’s operation of
transit services in Vancouver and
Victoria has been regarded as a
cost against its energy business,
and every effort has been made to
cut costs — and services — in the
transit system.

In spite of a massive public debt
incurred by Hydro, it still plans to
spend $3.2 billion in unneeded
energy projects over the next five
years. It is against that demand

at

PACIFIC TRIBUNE—MARCH 17, 1978—Page 8 ;

that it is determined to cut costs in
the transit system, where labor
costs amount to nearly 80 percent
of the total costs, according to the
company. ;

Hydro has also been cutting costs
by direct cutbacks in_ transit
services in Vancouver in recent
months — over the protests of:
citizens’ groups and Vancouver
city council — and Hydro has
informed the city that further
cutbacks will now be implemented.

In large advertisements placed
in Vancouver and Victoria dailies
this week, Hydro posed labor costs
as the issue in the strike, claiming
that it “‘should not be a pace setter
in the payment of wages.”

In fact, however, the ATU has
accepted the wage offer of Hydro
and it is no longer an issue. The
real issue is the corporations
demand to end union control ofthe
“Spareboard’’, the system by
which extra bus runs and overtime
is allocated to transit workers.

The union, on the other hand, is’
demanding a shorter work week,
from 37 1/2 hours to 35 hours. The
ATU points out that all other Hydro
employees have a 35 hour week
already. :

But Hydro will not bargain on the
shorter work week and is deter-

mined that the union must give up
the conditions on the spareboard
that have been established in
collective agreements over 70
years.

According to the present
collective agreement transit
drivers with seniority get to “sign
in’ for the routes of their choice. In
the case of sickness, or more
commonly for extra runs at rush
hours, drivers are called from the
“spareboard”’ to take the route.
Drivers with seniority get first
crack at the “‘spareboard”’ routes
available, which bring a higher

rate of pay.

Over the last year Hydro has not
hired enough drivers to handle all
the spareboard work, and many
needed extra runs have not been
put on the street. The corporation
wants to solve the problem, and
continue to cut labor costs, by
removing seniority rights on the
spareboard and assigning drivers
to routes as it wishes. The end
result would allow Hydro to juggle

its work force and cut back on the

man hours employed, while at the
same time cutting back on the
service to the public.

Trend growing towards ‘right-to-work’ laws