SESS
ae.
=
SS

si

LES

Much mileage has been made
out of employers’ arguments that
the wage differential between
Canada and the United States
reflects, generally, a difference
in productivity, Wage parity, it
is stated, can only be achieved if
there is parity in productivity.
Dr. John J, Deutsch, chairman of
the Economic Council of Canada,
is reported to have said that
Canada’s general level of pro-
ductivity is at least 25 percent
below that of the U.S.

“

This statement is challenged
by Harry Waisglass, research
director for the United Steel-
workers of America, who says
“the difference is no more than
20 percent and probably much
less if the concealed profit trans-
fers from Canadian firms to for-
eign parents could be determined
and restored to Canadian produc-
tion records, However, the labor
income difference is much
greater — almost 30 percent.”

Mr. Waisglass goes on to say:

“In any event, the difference

_ «in national averages for pro-
ductivity and for labor income

- really has no bearing whatsoever
on the wage parity issue, unless
the structure of industries in the
two countries should happen to be
the same: that is, unless each
industry, such as movie making
or space ships, had the same
relative importance in each coun-
try.

*The union objective for pay
parity should not be translated
to mean that it wants an equality
of averages or that it wants all
jobs, regardless of their ‘sig-
nificant differences, to get the
same pay. Pay parity really
means equal pay for equal or
comparable work.”

But the big question is whether
the argument, that the Canadian-
U.S. wage differential reflects the
difference in productivity, can be
supported by any factual evidence
whatever,

Mr. Waisglass refutes the ar-
gument further in his recent
pamphlet “Toward Equitable In-
come Distribution” — some
social and economic considera-
tions for union wage policy —
published by the Steelworkers’
national office for Canada.

**In the Primary Metal Manu-

- facturing Industry, in 1963,” Mr.
Waisglass points out, ‘‘the value-
added output per employee was
about four percent greater for

salaries were about 19 percent
below the U.S.” And he goes on
to ask: “Shouldn’t Canadian
: be higher than the Amer-
ican?” .

In steel, Mr. Waisglass points
out: “Output per workers in the
integrated iron and steel mills

if not higher, than in most Amer-
ican mills, ‘Yet, 964 average

LABOR SCENE

BRUCE MAGNUSON

Canada, but average wages and)

by

hourly earnings for the primary
iron and steel industry in Can-
ada were 19.2 percent below the
U.S.: and in Ontario 17 percent
below the U.S. average.

“Since 1957 . . . productivity
has increased more than seven
percent per year in Canada’s
steel industry, but less than three
percent in the US, The pro-
ductivity growth has been such
that the major part of Canada’s
steel industry, which is located
in Ontario, can now favorably
compare with the most efficient
steel mills located anywhere in
the U.S, Onthe other hand, wages
have not grown so fast as in the
U.S. ‘steel industry, where aver-
age hourly earnings increased by
66 cents . .. compared to a 56-
cent increase for Canada...
and a 53-cent increase for On-
tario . . . Where productivity
has increased the most. the wages
have increased the least, Why
have wages failed to rise com-
mensurate with productivity, as
conventional wisdom says it
should? Should not Canada’s
Economic Council be looking for
the answers?”

The difference in average
hourly earnings for the primary
steel industry is given as 60
cents between the U.S, and On-
tario. To this has to be added
an additional difference inhourly
costs for fringe benefits of 55
cents, plus a deferred wage in-
crease of six cents per hour
effective for the U.S. steel in-
dustry on August 1, 1967,

“This adds up to a total differ-
ence of $1.21 per hour in wages ~
and fringe benefits which the
Steelworkers in Canada will have
to get in their next collective
agreements at Stelco and Algoma
in order to establish full pay
parity with the U.S. (Over-a
two-year period from August 1,
La eee

«t. . . The rule that wage in-—
creases must be justified by pro-
ductivity increases was not made
by the unions, but rather by the
employers and government, The
production count is kept by the
bosses, and sometimes by the
government too, They will let
the workers know when they are
losing, but not when the pro-
ductivity score favors the work-
ers and the bosses have to pay
off.

“Now the steel industry is
certainly one where the pro-
ductivity score favors the work-
ers and the United Steelworkers
knows it. The time has come to
collect and the money is there,
but how much the workers will
get still depends only on the
power of the union to pry it
away... a5

To which I would like to add:
Well put, indeed ... Moreover,
I would recommend the above-
mentioned booklet to anyone who
wishes to understand the social
and economic aims of labor in
this great and challenging col-

lective bargaining year of 1966,

DOMINICAN ELECTION:

Will U.S. bayonets
nullify ballots?

By PEGGY DENNIS

The big question in the sched-
uled June 1 presidential election
in the Dominican Republic is not
so much how will the people
vote, but:

*Will the elections take place
at all or will mounting rightist
violence erupt in a _putschist
coup?

*Will the Johnson Administra-
tion, thousands of miles away
in Washington, accept the peo-
ple’s choice in the sovereign
Dominican state?

*How free are elections held
under the guns of 8,000 foreign
occupation troops, 6,800 of them
Americans?

*What effect will the. election
results have on the crucial need
for sweeping solutions to the
people’s economic needs?

U.S. newsmen in Santo Do-

mingo alleged so-called leftist:

demonstrations aimed “to pro-
voke a new wave of violence that
could block the general elections
set for June” (Associated Press,
April 29),

But, actually, news reports of
acts of violence admit that U.S.
troops are the instigators, not
demonstrators,

U.S. paratroopers fired into a
demonstration protesting the
presence of U.S. military forces
in the country on April 28, Six
Dominicans; including a two year
old child, were shot,

In this atmosphere, bets are
running high that, if he wins on
June 1 as is generally expected,
Bosch will not be allowed to take
office.

Three Americans returned
from Santo Domingo last week
emphasizing this view.

Victor G. Reuther, director of
international affairs for the Uni-
ted Auto Workers Union, Negro
civil rights leader Bayard Rustin,
and the Rey, George B, Ford of
New York’s Freedom House said
they “had found strong mistrust
among Dominicans about the U.S.
willingness to support democracy
there,”

They found too, they reported,
distrust among supporters of
Juan Bosch about the armed
forces permitting Mr. Bosch to
stay in office if he won the elec-
tions,’’

They added, “There is wide-
spread belief that the American
government would side with the
military in the event of conflict
between a freely elected govern-
ment and the military.”

One year ago on May 2 Presi-
dent Johnson took to the airwaves
to declare that U.S. troops had
landed in the Dominican Repub-
lican to assure “that the people

of that country be permitted to_

freely choose the path of politi-
eal democracy, social justice and
economic progress,”’

Even as the President spoke
the Dominican people were fight-
ing in the streets, from house-
tops, behind barricades in work-
ing class quarters for that free
choice, They were demanding
the ouster of the military junta,
a return of the 1963 constitution
and the reinstatement of exiled
President Bosch, (“I am not a

Communist, I am not an anti-

Communist, I am a non-Com-
munist,”)

Bosch was the only legally
elected Dominican president in 68
years of U.S. military occupation,
Trujillo dictatorship and a parade
of military juntas. He was elec-
ted by 60% of the vote and had the
support of a broad coalition of all
center and left-to-center politi-
cal parties, including the Com-
munists.

But the President governed for
only seven months, He was ousted
by a military coup in September,
1963, And last year the people
fought to have him back — symbol
of democratic processes and self
government,

The U.S, paratroops, marines,
and tank divisions landed in the
Dominican Republic and fought
not with the people, but on the
side of the military junta against
the people, .

Will Washington peaceably al-
low in June, 1966, what it used
U.S. invading troops, machine
guns and tanks to prevent in
April, 1965?

President Johnson is quoted
as telling congressional leaders
(Washington Report, May 2) that
if he had to, he would do it over
again, with one difference, “I
would move harder and faster in
using force.” :

Under the protest and pres-
sure of world opinion, particu-
larly of the major Latin Ameri-
ean countries, the Administration

_ has withdrawn some 15,000 of

the original invasion troops, But
nearly 7,000 remain in the coun-
try of 3.5 million,

The demand for withdrawal of U.S. troops from the Dominican Republic has fea-

The U,S. military operation
in the Dominican Republic is
still of ‘*such magnitude it some-
times seems the troops came
here to stay,” wrote Associated
Press correspondent Robert
Burellez on April 1.

«The legacy of bitterness
stemming from U,S. intervention
remains a major issue,’’ the
Christian Science Monitor writes.
(April 27),. “This is* true not
only with leftist groups; but
with moderates as well, The
presence of foreign occupying
troops galls many Dominicans,”

The Popular Socialist party
(Communist) places as the “par-
amount task of the popular move- .
ment today” the “united front fight
for the withdrawal of the U.S.
occupation forces,”

Such an expulsion as a result
of the “popular mass action of
the people” would pave the way
to immediate revolutionary
changes in the economic struc-
ture of the country’? the Com-
munists declare in a major docu-
ment analyzing the Dominican
events,

They warn that *the forces of
intervention are trying to intimi-
date the democrats’’ and that “it
is not excluded that a naked
military tyranny may be in-
stalled.”

Juan Bosch’ told newsmen last
month, **Once more the confusion

and agitation that the extreme

right and its North American
allies want to see in this coun-
try will try to destroy the Dom-
inican democratic movement,”

tured prominently in many demonstrations in the United States.

Jubilee Camp plans
lively 30th year

In a press release this week,

Carl Erickson, Publicity Chair-

man of the Children’s Jubilee
Camp, announced the schedule of
arrangements for this year’s
Camp outing.

In the 30th anniversary of the
operation of the Children’s Jub-
ilee Summer Camp at Orlomah
Beach up Indian Arm, it is hoped
that this will be one of the most
successful years inits operation,

Dates for the sessions are:
BOYS — July 4 - 15 and July
18 - 29, GIRLS — Aug. 1 - 12
and Aug, 15 - 26,

Age limits for the children
are 7 - 13 and the cost for the
12-day sessions are $30.00 and
$1.50 for the return fare,

Starting on June 2, you will
be able to register your children
at 359 Homer Street, just a half
block north of Hastings in the

offices of the Building Service
Employees’ Union, This will take
place on Mondays and Thursdays
from 10:00 a.m, to 2:00 p.m.
Those wanting further informa-
tion can phone Mrs, Erickson —
CY 8-2132, Mrs, Gordon— CY 8-
8166 or Mrs. Fordham — 434-
T3759.

Opened in the spring of 1936
in Vancouver’s Golden Jubilee,
the Children’s Jubilee Summer
Camp has had the support of
Trade Unions, Business Firms,
Fraternal Organizations, Clubs
and private donors, and at pres-
ent modern bathroom facilities
are being constructed for the
convenience and health of the
children,

We hope you will consider
sending your youngsters up to the
Camp this summer, but we

suggest you register early as the
facilities are limited,

“May 27, 1966—PACIFIC TRIBUNE—Page 2

ne ee