APPRENTICESHIP FORUM

Canada’s critical shortage of skilled tradesmen could cripple the country’s indus- trial expansion in the years ahead unless remedial action is taken at once.

This message came through loud and clear at the Apprenticeship Forum spon- sored by the Provincial Apprenticeship Board January 21, at the Delta River Inn, and attended by leaders of industry, unions and government.

The keynote speaker was Jack Heinrich, B.C. Minister of Labour, who in a hard hitting address stated one solution to the problem was for the employers to do more training of apprentices.

He added that there must be less reliance on poaching, pirating, stealing and the old standby, immigration.

He argued that a system must be devised to ensure that all industries in B.C. share equally in the responsibility for training the required skilled workforce.

Two proposals he put forth in question form were:

1. Should government develop some form of financial equalization so that those employers who do not train will be required to help pay the costs of training?

2. Should consideration be given to cost equalization schemes in which employers have the choice of spending a percentage of payroll on training and development or paying an equal amount to government ina form of a training levy?

The IWA has argued for years that some form of assessment should be levied against those employers who refuse to train their employees preferring to get them elsewhere by hook or by crook.

Regional first vice-president Bob Blan- chard one of the featured speakers at the Forum stated at the opening of his remarks, “The truth is that the forest industry history as it pertains to co-operation in training skilled workers has been, until recently, fifty-one cards short of a full deck.”

While scoring the Coastal forest compan- ies for their lack of action, Blanchard did pay credit to the Interior companies for working with the IWA in devising a training

> |

Regional First Vice-President Bob Blanchard addressing the Apprenticeship Forum sponsored by the Provincial

Southern Interior Forest Labour Relations Association.

Apprenticeship Department January 21, at the River Inn, Richmond. On the far left is John Todman, President of the

programme which will ensure the proper ratio of apprentices to journeymen.

He also mentioned that the forest compan- ies in Alberta are working with the Union on similar training programmes.

He warned his listeners that while the IWA was interested in cooperating, as an industrial union it would insist that senior people have the first opportunity at apprent- iceship postings.

He also warned that the Union would

fight any employer in the forest industry who attempted to use apprentices as a source of cheap labour.

He concluded by stating that in his opinion the present situation was not irrep- arable provided that the interested parties gave their genuine cooperation.

While no concrete proposals came out of the Forum it was generally regarded as a good meeting and should help in deciding what course of action should be taken.

SIGNIFICANT VICTORY

The members of the Amalgamated Clo- thing and Textile Workers’ Union (ACTWU) have won a significant victory by winning their first collective agreement with the violent anti-union J. P. Stevens Company.

The agreement, ratified by ACTWU mem- bers at Stevens’ plants in North and South Carolina and in Alabama, puts an end to the most protracted labour-management dispute in American history, and to the boycott of Stevens’ products.

As part of the contract settlements, some 8,500 workers at Stevens’ plants in severl Southern U.S. States will receive a retroac- tive wage settlement of 19.3 per cent, representing more than three million dol- lars.

The company has also agreed to make up back payments due to union pension funds. And it agreed to offer the same economic package to workers at any of its 70 other

plants who in the next 18 months organizea union certified by the National Labour Relations Board.

“WALKING WOUNDED”

THE EDITOR:

I read in your August 1980 issue Volume XLVIII No. 7 on the back page the following under “Remember” and I quote “itis a viola- tion of union policy to allow or encourage injured workers to perform duties in the role of walking wounded.”

I would appreciate a more detailed expla- naction of this union policy.

W. L. Polman, MD

Dear Dr. Polman:

I have been requested by the editor of the 1.W.A. Western Canadian ‘Lumber Worker’ to respond to your letter of enquiry dated December 19, 1980.

I am enclosing for your information a copy of the I.W.A. Safety Policy and Com- mittee Members Guide Book, which con- tains on page 10, the policy on walking wounded that you mentioned in your letter. It also contains an “explanation” of walk- ing woulded at the bottom of that page.

I will attempt, however, to explain in a little more detail, what itis the union objects to with so-called “light duty” otherwise known as “walking wounded”. Unfortu- nately we have experienced over and over again situations where a worker is injured at work and the employer will phone the individual and suggest there is a “light duty” job he or she could do rather than staying home on compensation. On the surface there would not appear to be a problem with this, but on closer examina- tion we usually find the worker will be given a make-up job (e.g. counting bolts and nuts in the storeroom or even just sitting in the first aid room) for a few days and then will be required to return to his or her job. If the injured worker cannot perform the job, he or she may be sent home. The problem occurs when the worker then attempts to collect compensation. Usually the claim is pro- tested, by the company or the W.C.B. and there are long delays while the claim is

being appealed, before the worker receives money, if ever.

The I.W.A. has also had reports from injured members who have been harassed by the company personnel who may phone continually or even visit the worker’s house in an attempt to have the worker return early to work. Also, in many cases, Dr. Polman, the worker’s physician is phoned by the company who claims to have a “light duty” job for the worker. The doctor some- times agrees believing the work wll not harm his patient. However the fact of the matter is thatin the forest industry there are practically no “light duty” jobs. Most categories of work require a worker to stand for long periods, lift, pull and push consid- erable weights, drive mobile equipment which is noisy, dirty and vibrates exten- sively. In the logging industry there are even less possibilities for light work. I could go on and list the various types of work in the woodworking industry, but perhaps you are personally familiar with them. How- ever, unfortunately most doctors are not, and that is part of the problem.

Please don’t misunderstand our position,

Dr. Polman, we are not opposed to workers

returning to some form of productive work

when it is for rehabilitative purposes and in fact we have often worked with the medical profession and the W.C.B. in attempting to return a seriously injured worker to some kind of productive employment, and we will continue to do so. The objections we have are to the cases where an employer will attempt to coerce an employee to return to work or to stay at work rather than going on compen- sation simply to maintain an “accident-free record”.

Hopefully I have explained the I.W.A.’s position on “walking wounded” to your satisfaction, Dr. Polman. However if you have any further questions or comments, we would be pleased to hear from you. We sincerely thank you for your interest.

Verna Ledger, Director Safety and Health

2/Lumber Worker/January, 1981