S
.
iy

LABOUR

—a

A major debate is about to erupt in B.C.’s
trade union movement over how labour
should react to the massive privatization
program soon to be announced by the
Vander Zalm government.

It is becoming all too clear that privatiza-
tion will be the dominant economic policy
of the Vander Zalm era, as restraint was for
the Bill Bennett period. But as it was with
labour legislation, Vander Zalm can be
counted on to pursue his particular brand of
extreme right wing policy with ideological
zeal.

The leadership of most public sector
unions have long anticipated the Socred
program and have been considering for
some time their responses. It was only last
week, however, that a formal exchange of
ideas took place at the B.C. Federation of
Labour’s public sector committee.

At the committee meeting a position
paper was circulated suggesting that the pol-

icy of the labour movement should be not to
oppose privatization if it meets certain crite-
ria relating to job protection and union
rights. _

Understandably, that controversial pro-
posal evoked a reportedly sharp exchange,
and, for the present, no decision.

The reasoning that led to the proposal is
indicative of a wider trend of thought run-

~ ning through certain sections of the labour

movement, particularly the B.C. Govern-
ment Employees Union leadership.

The argument begins on a sound basis:
“‘_.. privatization and contracting out must
be linked with the failed restraint policies of
the Bennett government. At the same time it
must be made clear that privatization on a
wide front which does not protect the public
interest and the interests of workers whose
jobs will be affected will only provoke more
confrontation and perpetuate the climate of
uncertainty in B.C.

public sector unions were to react by oppos-
ing all forms of privatization it would not be
credible for us at the same time to pressure
the government that any further privatiza-
tion meet the test of a set of criteria adopted
by the federation. This reactive position
would also make us vulnerable to criticism
that we are being confrontational.” :

The position of those who were a little
shocked by the draft paper was, simply put,
that privatization is confrontational and an
attack on unions and public services, and
must be opposed. It was suggested that it
was misleading to hold out the promise of
the Socred’s privatization program meeting
any criteria that the labour movement
would advance.

It was also argued that both the B.C.
Federation of Labour and the Canadian
Labour Congress already have clear policy
opposing privatization as one of the three
cornerstones of right wing economic and
social policy in Canada: privatization,
deregulation and free trade.

With Vander Zalm’s program promised
to commence before Christmas, there is lit-
tle time for a broad consensus to be reached
in the labour movement. Reaching that
consensus will be further complicated by the

fact that although the matter has been .

under active consideration in leadership cir-
cles, at the local level the fight against Bill 19
has preempted this and almost every other
important matter.

The scale and significance of Vander
Zalm’s program will undoubtedly take
many by surprise. But before the rank and
file can be mobilized to protect their jobs, a
clear policy is needed from the leadership.

As the debate intensifies over the next
two months it will return again and again to
two points at the heart of the issue.

The first is conspicuously absent from the
line of argument presented to the public
sector committee. That is the public sector
itself. Should not it be defended in principle?
If the labour movement and the left fails to
champion the need for a healthy public sec-
tor, who will?

It can be assumed that Vander Zalm will
introduce privatization in strong ideological
terms. Privatization and a reduced public
sector will be presented as inherently good.
The public sector, and therefore public sec-
tor workers, get painted as inefficient and

‘If some in the labour movement are looking for a
pro-active rather than a re-active position to take,
the most constructive policy would be to support a
healthy, dynamic and democratic public sector.’

“Tt is evident from recent polls that the
majority of people in B.C. are very con-
cerned about privatization and will view
with skepticism any heavy handed approach
to privatization by the Vander Zalm
government.” :

However, after suggesting that the labour
movement has strong ground on which to
fight, the analysis quickly turns defensive:

“However, in responding to privatization
we must be careful that public sector unions
and the B.C. Fed are not seen as negative or
confrontational. We must be seen as ration-
ally putting forward a credible position ...
We are recommending that the BCFL take
the position that it will not oppose privatiza-
tion if privatization can meet the test of a set
of criteria to protect the public interest and
the interests of workers whose jobs will be
affected by privatization.”

The argument concludes with the
assessment that privatization will take place
and that the labour movement must place
itself in the strongest possible position to
influence the process. This also is reason for
not opposing privatization in principle:
““We are convinced that if the B.C. Fed and

bureaucratic costs against the public wel-
fare. And each specific case of privatization,
regardless of its merits, will be judged
according to those ideological criteria in
first place.

The future of various crown corporations
or government services on the privatization
chopping block will ultimately amount to
battles in a larger war. The war itself will be
won or lost on the ideological front of the
public sector question.

Our public sector is not a form of social-
ism, but it is the basis of a democratic and
socially responsible economic and social
policy. Certainly the kind of public sector
‘that the left must advocate must be a much
more democratic and accountable one, but

“the very existence of public property and
public institutions provides the indispensi-
ble basis to achieve an economy that can
serve the public interest.

If some in the labour movement are look-
ing for a pro-active rather than a re-active
position to take, the most constructive pol-
icy would be to support a healthy, dynamic
and democratic public sector.

12 e PACIFIC TRIBUNE, SEPTEMBER 9, 1987

Privatization: labour can’t be neutral

The Social Credit government’s
impending privatization program will
_ likely be a key issue for debate as two

trade union leaders, an NDP MLA and
an economist discuss “Public Owner-
_ ship or Privatization” at a special pub-

_ the Centre for Socialist Education. —
B.C. Government Employees Union
president John Shields and Mike
- Dumler, president of the B.C. Division

_ Employees, will join Nanaimo-Lady-
_ Dave Fairey, an economist with Trade

_ Union Research Bureau, as panelists.
_ The forum is set for Wednesday

e Sept. 23, 7:30 p.m. in the Centre for _
‘Socialist Education, 1726 East Hast-

ings. - .
_ Privatization is expected to be the
main item on the political agenda of the —
province over the next several months

_ Fraser Institute-inspired program to
_ sell off Crown companies and govern-
_ ment services to the private sector.
_ Intergovernmental Affairs Minister

Stephen Rogers is now completing his

The second fulcrum on which the privati-
zation debate will tip is that of strategy. And
inevitably the analogy will be drawn to the
five year battle against restraint which
began in 1982. When Bennett introduced
his first restraint budget, both the NDP and
the labour movement were careful not to
argue with the concept which they perceived
was like motherhood. Of course govern-
ment expenditures and taxes must be care-
fully monitored, but this must be done
responsibly without hurting people who
need social services or confronting workers,
the opposition was heard to say over and
over. ~

Even after the July, 1983 budget and in
the midst of the Solidarity movement, I can
remember well a provincial conference at
which Solidarity’s unofficial program was
being hammered out and a heated exchange
about whether Solidarity’s program should
reject the economic and social policy of
restraint. All of the speakers were opposed
to the restraint policy, but only a minority
were prepared to say so publicly. After
more than a year of neutrality on the ideo-
logical issue, the majority were by then quite
intimidated by the apparent public support
for this general idea of restraint.

To suggest that the unpopularity of res-
traint today can be attributed to not oppos-
ing it in 1982 is more than cynical.
Eventually the concept of restraint did fall
into public discredit, but this was because of
the destruction wreaked on the social servi-

—

- Socred selloff plan
focus of CSE forum

lic forum later this month organized by

| of the Canadian Union of Public ©
smith NDP MLA Dale Lovick and —

-as the government embarks on its —

SHIELDS —FAIREY
task force report on the privatizatio:
program and an announcement is —

expected in October on the govern-

ment’s plans which Vander Zalm has
hinted could “potentially re-structur

_ the workings of government in B.C.” _

Both Shields and Dumler lead key
public sector unions whose members —
will be immediately affected by any sale —

of corporations or government services|

and Fairey has been commissioned by
various unions to prepare material on —
the impact of privatization. Lovick is _
the New Democrats’ critic on privatiza-

tion.

Child care is available for the forum

but only by pre-registration at 254-1533. :

ces of the province and the many campaign
in defence of jobs and services. It is a bit lik
arguing that the political basis for the defea
of fascism was laid at Munich.

Perhaps more relevant to the figh
against privatization is the recent experien?
with the CLC’s campaign against free trade
At convention, the CLC adopted a militan
position to devote all its energy to defea
free trade and in Ontario, a considerabl
campaign was undertaken. However, th
CLC position was compromised in part b
the neutrality of the Pawley government
Manitoba and in B.C., by the NDP unde
Bob Skelly. The IWA equivocated on th'
issue and gave its support to the softwoo
lumber deal with the U.S. which was a ké,
step by the Tories in facilitating the fre
trade negotiations.

The result was a campaign that never g0
off the ground in the West and that, in tur?
was a major factor in the public suppo!
that the Tories have for free trade from
Western Canada and B.C. in particular. ©

The current debate over privatization
likely end in a reaffirmation of long stand
ing policies to oppose privatization. But |
the only consensus that can be reached ist
stick with existing policy, the result may we
be the lack of resolve to mount the cam
paign of opposition that will be desperatel
needed. For that reason especially, no effo!
should be spared to reach unity on a broat
popular campaign of opposition again‘
Vander Zalm’s next assault on workin
people.

i & | 4

YY i
i x
i Published weekly at 2681 East Hastings Street f
: Vancouver, B.C. V5K 1Z5. Phone 251-1186 F
e Namestecs0se th i At. 4 . Lean ei Sasi eM os - r
BM  Aviditase. tte ore, ek. is fee Oo eo ae es -
: RON SENG LETTS, Postal Code 246s. ssspo beaks css f
ry lamenclosing 1 yr. $160) 2yrs. $280) 6 mo. $10 O :
g___ Introductory offer, 3 mo. $30 Foreign 1 yr. $250 Bill me later 0 f

READ THE PAPER THAT FIGHTS FOR LABOUR