MFL urges Schreyer to join
in opposition to wage controls

By W. C. ROSS

WINNIPEG — This year’s
legislative submission by the
Manitoba Federation of Labor to
Premier Schreyer and his cabinet
earlier this month reflected the
rising militancy in labor’s ranks
and a demand for a greater say in
planning economic and _ social
policies for the province.

Presented by its recently-
elected new president, Nels Thi-
bault, the tone of the brief was set
in its opening paragraphs with the
reminder that ‘‘the historical pol-
icy of the Manitoba Federation of
Labor is that it is separate and
distinct from government and not
an adjunct of any political party.
Within that policy, nevertheless,
labor nationally and provincially,
actively promotes political con-
sciousness, leading toward the es-
tablishment of government(s)
committed to fulfilling socialist
concepts as opposed to the in-
equitable concepts of free
enterprise.

“*Since Confederation, 109
years ago, the Canadian work
force have suffered exploitation,
denial of human’ rights and the
constant indignity of being
excluded from participation in a
positive role where policy is
determined relative to resource
development, production
methods and economic stability.

Seeming Non-alarm

“Such indignity is not lessened

Labour Research, No. 1, Oct.
1976, issued by the Research De-
partment of the Canadian Union
of Public Employees, has some
interesting information on work-
ers’ productivity and profits in the
auto industry. For instance, bet-
ween 1964 and 1974, productivity
in the Canadian auto industry
rose at an annual-rate of 8.8%.
(This is nearly three times the
productivity factor of 3% used by
the UAW in contract negotiations
to compensate the workers for
annual productivity increases. It
is over four times as much as the
rate used by the AIB for the same
purpose.) .

Taking these figures into ac-
count, relative to what workers
produce, it becomes clear that
these employees in one of our
basic manufacturing industries
are being shamefully exploited.
This becomes even more evident
when one examines available
statistics with respect to wages
paid and the added value pro-
duced by the workers in the
industry.

According to the bulletin men-
tioned above, a Canadian worker
in the auto industry in 1964 was
receiving about $2.70 per hour
and added $8.80 per hour to the
product he produced, which
meant that the corporation re-
tained more than twice the
amount paid for labor power, or
$6.10 per hour, for every hour a
worker was on the job.

Value-Added Doubled

In 1974, 10 years later, the
wages had more than doubled at
$5.90 per hour. But so had value
added by the worker to the

PACIFIC TRIBUNE—JANUARY 7, 1977—

when an insufficiency of con-
trolled federal and/or provincial
investment in resource develop-
ment allows for greater domina-
tion by foreign investment in-
terests of the economic and politi-
cal sovereignty of Manitoba and
of Canada. The seeming non-
alarm over trends which detract
from a position of being “‘masters
in our own house”’ can lead only
to a belief that a state of bureau-
cracy is now reached where such
position is held to be relatively
unimportant and further held that
the work force will, in a servile
manner, rest satisfied to remain
mere ‘hewers of wood and draw-
ers of water.’

‘‘The indignity felt by the work
force, inclusive of that in Manito-
ba, increases when over and
above being excluded from par-
ticipation in policy planning, they
are made a ‘scape goat’ for the ills
and failures of a free, or modified
free enterprise system. A classic
failure is exemplified by the de-
teriorating inflationary spiral nur-
tured by a system which exploits
production for privileged profi t
rather than production for use in
betterment of the population.”’

Opposes Wage Controls

The MFL once again reiterated
that it ‘remains unswerving in its
opposition to legislated wage con-
trols being imposed on the work
force and no less opposed to an
autocratic, bumbling Anti-In-

flation Board. ... Labor resents
and rejects the constant charge by
government, industry, or self-
styled lackies, that wages are a
main culprit in fuelling inflation;
that wage levels are out of propor-
tidn to per man productivity; that
markets for our goods are thereby
restricted; that wage levels
hamper growth and create an un-
favorable balance of payments
position.

‘Labor contends that AIB
interference in the free collective
bargaining process has been
harmful to the company. Roll-
backs in freely negotiated wages
and fringe benefits kept consumer
money out of workers’ pockets,
however, that money was re-
tained in industry coffers. While
this shell game goes on, unem-
ployment mounts.”

‘Withdraw from AIB’

The Federation appealed to the
Schreyer government to with-
draw its support from the federal
government wage control pro-
gram and from the AJB. It also
urged that Manitoba consult with
other provincial governments
with a view to enjoining them in a
withdrawal move.

The brief called on the provin-
cial government to do more in the
areas outlined in the CLC social
and economic plan of action (the
10 Point Program) with particular

emphasis on a concentrated at-

tack on unemployment, with

Workers not paid for

increased production

amount of $17.65 per hour, which
meant the auto corporations still
retained twice as much as they
paid for labor power, or $11.75
per hour. In other words, the rate
of value added by auto workers in
Canada was close to 200%.

Even if one allows for wear and
tear of machinery, raw materials
used up in the course of produc-
tion, transportation, administra-
tion, and overhead, it is safe to
say that the rate of actual surplus
value or profit, would be any-
where within the range of from
50% to 75%, which by any stan-

‘dards is a phenomenal -rate of

exploitation.
Looking at wages paid to pro-

‘duction and related workers,

these account for only 8.3% of the
value of shipments of the auto
producers. This means that a 10%
wage increase would add less
than one percentage point to the
labor cost of the finished product:
Therefore, the auto companies
have no reason whatever to make
consumers pay for new UAW
contracts. This fact becomes

even more obvious when we look ~

at the auto companies’ profit per-
formance.
Profits Up 177%

In 1975, Ford’s Canadian oper-
ations included only 3.4% of the
company’s world-wide employ-
ment. But Canadian workers pro-

- duced 28% of Ford’s international

profits. (In 1974 the respective
figures were even more dramatic;
3.5% of employees but 35% of the
profits!)

In 1975, Ford was extracting
approximately $6,300: in profit
(after taxes) per employee in its

Page 8

Canadian operations. It is ex-
pected that this will likely rise to
over $8,000 in 1976. These figures
are based on all employees on the
Ford payroll, meaning that the
figure would be much higher if
calculated for production workers
alone.

Annual reports of the company
show that compensation: to all

employees increased 46% in the~

five years between 1970 and 1975,
while after-tax profits increased

177% and profits per employee _

increased by 233%.

The Wall Street Journal points
up the fact that these phenomenal
profits are common to all the Big
Three Giants in the North Ameri-
can auto industry.

The General Motors Corpora-

tion showed $1,709-million in the —

first six months of 1976 as com-
pared to $392-million for the same
period in 1975.

The combined profits of the Big
Three — GM, Ford and Chrysler
—were $2,706-million for the first
half of 1976, of an approximate
800% increase in the profits re-
corded for the first half of 1975.

In view of the above it would
seem that the auto companies
could more than afford to reduce
the work week to 30 hours for 40
hours pay, plus a wage increase at

least double that in the present

new three-year contract, without
any price increase, and with even
more generous fringe benefits to
employees and retirees.

Something for auto workers to
think about between now and
1979, at least for those still fortu-
nate enough to have a job by that
time.

ME
Mega :

The MFL in their submission to the Manitoba government reiterated |
their unswerving opposition to wage controls and urged Schreyer to —

withdraw his support from the program.

positive action to accomplish full
employment.

“Among some 90 proposed
amendments to Manitoba’s labor
legislation and other recommen-

dations contained in the MFL ©

submission, were the following:
provincial government em-
ployees to be brought under the
Labor Relations Act; a ban on hir-
ing strike-breakers; province-
wide bargaining for all units in the
province of a common employer
with the same union on request of
that union; mandatory first con-
tracts; a minimum wage formula
of 70% of the Industrial Com-
posite Wage Index; extending the
minimum wage to apply to per-
sons engaged in agriculture,
fishing, fur farming and market
gardening; a ban on compulsory
overtime; universal extension of
benefits under the Workers Com-
pensation Act to cover all acci-
dents both on and off the job;
extend Medicare to cover the full
cost of drugs and medication,

dental and remaining” medical

services; take over all privately-

“strike-breakers. That’s democ-—

owned profit-oriented nursing —
homes; and a broader and more —
formal boycott of all South
African goods.

Schreyer’s Reaction

While promising to study the
MEFL submission and give a reply
to the matters raised, Premier
Schreyer’s reaction was that it”
contained far-reaching economic —
and social recommendations —
which ‘“‘would have the impact of |
bringing a very heavy tipping of
the balance of our Systems in in- 4
dustrial relations.” |

Mines Minister Sidney Green —
was much blunter. He emphati-
cally rejected the idea of legisla-
tion prohibiting the use of non-
union labor during a strike. Ac-
cording to him, if an employer —
could get people to work for him ;
during a strike, then he should be ~
able to do so. In other words, Mr. |
Green recognizes the right of
workers to strike but also grants —
the employer the right to bring in —

fe

racy for you!

7

NAME

Join the
Communist Party

CLIP AND MAIL THIS FORM FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION ABOUT THE COMMUNIST PARTY

(=I would like more information
( Please send samples of your literature
(1 I would like to join the Communist Party

Yi

cm

ADDRESS

CITY

ZONE

PROV.

OFFICE ADDRESSES

Communist Party of Canada
24 Cecil St., Toronto, Ont.
MST 1N2

Phone 979-2109

Parti Communiste du Québec
356 Mont Royal Est
Montreal 151, Quebec

Phone 843-5310

Manitoba Committee,
Communist Party of Canada
607 Main St.

Winnipeg, Manitoba R3B 1E1
Phone 942-8985

Saskatchewan Committee,
Communist Party of Canada
204 Northern Crown Bldg.,
1821 Scarth Street,

Regina, Sask.

Phone 522-1260

Communist Party of Canada,
201 South Algoma Street,
Thunder Bay ‘‘P’’, Ont.

’

COMMUNIST PARTY OF CANADA

Northwest Ontario Regional Committee, .

Alberta Committee,
Communist Party of Canada
1—9642 Jasper Ave.,
Edmonton, Alberta T54 3V5
Phone 422-4797

British Columbia Committee
Communist Party of Canada
408 Ford Bldg.,

193 East Hastings St.
Vancouver 4, B.C.

Phone 684-1451

. Ontario Committee,
Communist Party of Canada
24 Cecil St., Toronto, Ont.
MST 1N2
Phone 979-1904

Maritimes Committee
P.O. Box 7063

North Postal Station
Halifax, N.S.

B3K 534