Struggles in Europe and U.S. Steel fig htback on global scale By MIKE PHILLIPS Steel. It’s the basis for the sur- vival and development of an in- dustrial economy. Caught in the grips of the most severe crisis ever faced by the world capitalist system, the steel industry is a global battle-ground today where the issue of whether working people will have to foot the bill for a crisis they didn’t create, will be fought out. Whether its in France, Britain or.the U.S., the same story un- folds. The steel monopolies, backed by governments use the threat of plant closures and mas- sive unemployment in an effort to force the workers to accept wage controls, take a cut in wages, te- duce benefits and accept a lower living standard in order to guaran- tee monopoly superprofits. Everywhere the workers are fighting back. Britain: More than 100,000 steelworkers launched the first industry-wide strike in 54 years against the state-owned British Steel Corporation. BSC negotiators proposed the workers deal with a 17% annual inflation rate with a 2% wage hike. The workers are demanding 20% in the face of the Thatcher Tory government’s recent promise to _ stop subsidizing sections of the industry which will mean that some 52,00 British steelworkers will be jobless by August 1980. The last industry-wide steel strike occurred during the 1926 general strike and it is in the tradi- tion of that epic class battle that British workers responded with pledges of help and solidarity in the fight with the Tory govern- ment. Transport workers, doc- kers, railway workers and many others, including the 13-million . member Trades Union Congress, pledged to stop the movement of steel inside the country, or com- ing into Britain. On Jan. 3, leaders of the Inter- national Transport Federation called on affiliates throughout the ' world to refuse to handle steel bound for Britain. A couple of days later, the secretary of the International Metalworkers’ Federation called for a world- wide steel blockade in support of the strikers. The U.S.: With some 75,000 steelworkers’ jobs lost over the past five years, and the expecta- tion that by the mid-80s another 50,000 will be lost, American steelworkers are fighting back hard. Unfortunately their fight is hin- dered by the refusal of the top leadership of the United Steel- workers to lead the fight, oppose the wave of plant closure threats and press for nationalization of the industry. In fact, United Steelworkers president Lloyd McBride has made it clear that he’ agrees with plant closures and considers them good for the sur- vival of the industry. American Bridge The United Steelworkers in the U.S. have recently concluded their Basic Steel Industry Confer- ence to work out a bargaining program for the 1981 round of talks, on the background of a massive drive by the U.S. Steel Corporation to bludgeon steel- workers into accepting a lower living standard. USS has announced plans to close 16 shops removing some 13,000 workers ‘from its payroll this year. The corporation used the threat in talks with the union at three plants of one of its sub- sidiaries, American Bridge. Two months ago the workers were given the choice of a three- year wage freeze as an alternative to the company closing its sub- sidiary down. Despite a recommendation from the McBride leadership to accept, the workers over- whelmingly turned the ‘‘offer’’ down. USS then said it would close American Bridge’s two Pennsylvania locations and leave the plant in Gary, Indiana open. When lower level management and the union suggested the com- pany might reconsider the closure if the workers reversed their posi- tion, the workers agreed to the company’s terms. At that point USS said this wasn’t good enough and de- manded the locals withdraw from the Basic Steel Contract as well. Local Fightback Later, at the basic Steel con- ference, local union presidents unanimously shot down a McBnide proposal to pull steel company: subsidiaries out of the Basic Steel Contract. However, McBride indicated that the no- strike, ENA (Experimental Negotiating Agreement) which denies rank and file steelworkers the right to ratify the agreement, should be renewed in the next U.S. basic steel contract. ENA doesn’t apply to Canada. Despite the lack of leadership from McBride and company, the steelworkers at the local level are fighting back. Last year, Youngstown, Ohio steelworkers stormed USS offices to protest the shutting of the Youngstown plant. Recently in Torrance, California a rank-and-file commit- tee has been formed aimed at pressing the government to inter- vene in keeping the Torrance plant open. France: Some 7,000 French steelworkers won a 60-day strike Nov. 26, 1979 against the giant Alsthom-Belfort steel monopoly, which earlier had boasted that it didn’t negotiate with any union, but merely called them in to out- line what terms they were to get. France’s largest trade union fed- eration, the Communist-led CGT claimed the Alsthom workers’ victory in breaking the steel monopolies’ 8% wage ceiling was proof that ‘‘it is possible to open breaches in the politics of austeri- tye Occupied Plant The workers smashed the wage ceiling in improving the minimum wage for the 40-hour work week, a large raise for the lowest paid workers, back pay, increased benefits and improved working conditions. To do so they had to organize demonstrations, and oc- cupied the plant in the face of se- vere police repression. PACIFIC TRIBUNE—JANUARY 25, 1980—Page 6 PHOTO — MORNING STAR | ) a. Pickets keep warm at a steel piant underway Jan. 2. The strike involves over 100,000 workers. France’s steel monopolies are using the same tactics as their U.S. and British counterparts. Their threats of closures and massive layoffs have sparked a strike wave throughout the coun- try with workers answering the bosses’ demand for wage cuts and reduced benefits with the call for higher wages and the 35-hour work week to beat back unemployment. In the Alsthom fight, the key to victory was the unity of all the workers and their organizations, including the CGT, the socialist- led CFDT, and two smaller un- LABOR SCENE By BRUCE MAGNUSON January 9, was the last day for political parties to contract for time on the electronic media for election broadcasts. The com- mercial time is regulated by the Canadian Radio-Television and Telecommunication Commission (CRTC) as per provisions of the Canada elections Act, article 99.1 paragraph 7. As the Torento Globe and Mail reported last week the Progres- sive Conservatives have 143 mi- nutes and Liberals 137 minutes of the allotted time on the electronic . thedia. This is 72% of the 6' hours of commercial time made available by the CBC and CTV television networks. The New Democratic Party has been allot- ted 64 minutes, the Social Credit Party 22 minutes, and parties not in the House of Commons six mi- nutes each. To quote from the Globe story: ‘*,. In the case of the Liberals and PCs, the allocations are next to meaningless since neither party can afford to buy all the time it has been allotted. The 6.5 hours set . aside for advertising have a vlaue of at least $25-million.”’ But the allocation is not ‘‘mean- ingless’’ as the Globe puts it. The fact is that these are the parties of monopoly and the status quo in parliament. They receive millions _in donations from the corporate sector to enable them to buy all the time they want and need to maintain their monopoly control of the electronic media advertis- ing. As for popular support by voters, absolutely nothing in the last (May 22) election suggests that the Tory party is entitled to ions the FO and the CGC. This victory prompted the CGT to use it as an example to all workers | throughout the country to widen the opening created. by the Alsthom workers in the govern- ment’s and big business’ austerity program. The lessons of the British, U.S. and French fight are meaningful to Canadian steelworkers as the effects of the U.S. recession take a larger toll on our economy. Militant Unity Needed Financial analysts are pre- dicting a drop in steel production and exports from Canada during © the top place in the allocation of time for this election. Strong Objections Another example: At the meet- ing between the parties, (nine in all), and the CRTC on December 19, seven of these parties voted for equal distribution of time be- tween all parties. The Tories and Liberals abstained in the vote. Since no agreement could-be ar- rived at in a democratic way, the determination of the time allot- ment to each of the parties was left to the CRTC. In that first determination of time by the CRTC the Tories re- ceived 143 minutes, the Liberals 137, the NDP 52, the Social Credit Party 22, and all parties not rep- resented in the House eight mi- nutes each. This was a cut of 11 minutes from the NDP’s time alotted in the previous election and a four-minute cut from the Social Credit Party. Since that determination was made several parties objected strongly, in- cluding the NDP and the Com- munist Party. Also, since the Union Popu- laire — a Quebec party — has failed to qualify under the Canada Elections Act as a registered par- ty, a reallocation of time became necessary. In that reallocation of time the CRTC gave the eight mi- nutes originally allotted to the Union Populaire, plus one minute deducted from the four other par- ties not in parliament, to the NDP. This restored their cut plus one minute over and above their allocation last May. The Social Credit Party was given another four minutes at the expense of the. minority parties to restore. their near Rotherham as Britain’s first national steel stri Biased electoral system must go — Tesi ke since 1926 got is 1980. A recent Financial Post at ticle showed a 28% drop in steel exports to the U.S. from Canada between September 1978 and Sept. 1979. Investment consuk tants, Wood-Gundy, predict * 10%-15% reduction in Canadial steel exported to the U.S. this year. As the crunch comes to the Canadian steel industry, there }S every reason to expect the OWN: — ers here to be as ruthless in trying _to make bigger profits by trying t0 force the workers to take lowe! wages, fewer benefits, and harsher working conditions. time to 22 minutes, leaving six minutes for the Communist Party and each one of the other regis- ‘tered minority groupings. Most Undemocratic Statement — Another. important thing to re- member here is the fact that the” free time available on the elec-— tronic media is one half of the commercial allotment. This time - is allocated in direct proportion to the time allocated for commercial time. Consequently, since neither the Communist Party nor any of the other groups outside of parliament are able to buy com- mercial time at thousands of dol-— lars per minute, they are effec- tively deprived of the necessary — means to bring their point of view to the voters. Moreover, since the - taxpayers pay for the free time, — plus a 50‘ refund of the commer- cial time used by the big parties, - they have it both ways at public expense, while democratic rights to the electronic media are all but — denied to those who challenge the — status quo. ' There can be little doubt that in this respect, Canada is one of the most backward countries in the world with the most undemo- cratic electoral system tailored to © the maintenance of the parlia- mentary domination by the par- ties of monopoly capital and the status quo. jars Any effort by the working class — and democratic forces who are in - opposition to monopoly policies, must therefore seriously chal- lenge this bureaucratic electoral - system and replace it with a more democratic one, such as many other countries in the capitalist world have already done.