PRESI MESSAG

The I.W.A. can grow as a national union

by Dave Haggard

%, Tior to becoming the National Presi- |S \dent of L.W.A. CANADA on January | _ /80 of this year, I had a chance to get

2 ~ out there and see more of what our I | union is all about. During the elec- eae tion campaign I toured through vari- ous parts of Ontario and the B.C. Interior to witness the wide diversity that our union has.

Since the 1930s we have never been just a union that consists of only millworkers and log- gers. Today we are becoming an increasingly diverse organization with workers in service in- dustries and various manufacturing sectors as well as traditional areas of the forest industry.

We represent working people in a baseball and hockey stick plant, a carpet backing facto- ry, home care facilities, a metal office equip- ment manufacturer, plastic container plants, credit unions and school supplies distribution.

So it is for good reason that, at our national convention in 1994, we changed our union’s name to the Industrial, Wood and Allied Work- ers of Canada to reflect the broader base of our membership.

One of the issues that I campaigned on was organizing and union building. That means building a truly national union which repre- sents the interests of Canadian workers in all

sectors of the work- force.

I firmly believe that any rank and file worker in any sector should and can become a mem- ber of our union. We have one of the most democratic unions in this coun- try and I think it is imperative that we continue to get out there and tell work- ing people and their communities what we are all about.

Recently the Na- tional Officers and Executive Board of the union met to discuss the issue of revamping organizing across our union. At this time there is some serious planning taking place to best use our resources to organize and educate new I.W.A. members.

At this point in our history we have about 45,000 members across Canada, about 2/3’s of whom are employed in the forest industry. The fact that today we have about 1/3 of the mem- bership spread out in various other industrial and service sectors is a pretty good indication of where we are headed as a national organi- zation.

There are tens of thousands of unorganized workers out there that need to hear about our union and that is just what I intend to see hap- pen.

Most of our members are in B.C. Second on the numbers list is On- tario, followed by the prairie provinces and then Quebec and New Brunswick, both of which have only two 1.W.A. operations.

Since becoming Na- tional President I have issued the challenge that we should try to double the member- ship of our union in the foreseeable future. The strategy that we must take must be a national one in focus that at- tends to the needs of workers in every province.

In mid-March our union held a special two day conference on women’s issues, attended by fifty women from seventeen local unions across Canada (for coverage see next issue of the Lumberworker). It is clear that the call for this conference and the various issues dis- cussed at it are paving the way for more par- ticipation, from women, in our union.

I believe that women will play key roles in the future of the I.W.A. In terms of organizing, women will play an essential role in communi- cating the objectives of trade unionism to our fu- ture Sisters and Brothers in all parts of Canada.

I am proud to represent the membership of the I.W.A. and am confident in the strong leader- ship that exists at the local and sub-local union levels of our organization which will assist us in reaching out to build our national union.

Green groups short on job solutions

by Kim Pollock

WA 4 Phen talk turns to jobs, the conversa- \ \ | /tion with green groups ends. That’s

\ ry dling environment and land-use is-

sues. j Environmentalists are happy to talk about forests. They'll talk about ways to har- vest or not harvest timber. They'll even talk about forest-sector employment levels, which they’re usually convinced is in free fall due to technologi- cal change but which they also believe is unaffect- ed by land-use decisions. And they will earnestly tell you that we simply aren't creating enough jobs per cubic metres and “something” should be done about it.

But if you want to clear a roomful of conserva- tionists or environmentalists, all you need to do is ask what plans they have to create real jobs to re- place those they say are being lost due to tech change or those they want to eliminate as part of their current proposal for parks or other restric- tions on timber harvesting.

And if you really want to be alone, tell them you'd like to hear ways to create decent-paying union jobs. The answer, once you pry it out of them, is...that they have no answers.

Some recent examples.

Eco-Trust, the big, U.S.-based environmental group, was instrumental in creating the 317,000 hectare Kitlope protected area on B.C.’s north coast. Recently, Eco-Trust announced it wants to protect the adjacent Kawesas valley, as well.

Having heard Eco-Trust’s B.C. front-man Ian Gill on the radio crying crocodile tears about jobs, I called him. He assured me Eco-Trust is indeed very concerned about workers, jobs and communi- ties. He said he wanted to “open a dialogue” with I.W.A. CANADA and he promised to send me infor- mation on Eco-Trust’s job creation proposals. Months passed before I received a package of glossy promotional material - no job creation ideas.

Similarly, I’m still waiting for the David Suzuki Foundation. Last year, following publication of a Suzuki Foundation report on employment in the forest industry, Warren Ulley and I challenged Jim

Fulton, the organization’s executive director, to

“provide any suggestions might have in the area of job-creation, especially those that would allow good-paying, union jobs.” That was after we out- lined at length our views on job creation in the for- est sector.

But even though the Suzuki Foundation claims to have “solutions to the most serious prob- lems facing the planet,” it apparently offers no so- lutions at all to the problem of forest-sector em- ployment. Months have passed - no reply.

The Western Canada Wilderness Committee also clammed up when asked for job-creation ideas. At a meeting in Vancouver one WCWC

ber harvesting in Ontario’s Temagami, Algonquin Park and Algoma Highlands; undermining public confidence in B.C.’s new Forest Practices Code.

The bottom line: don’t look to environmental groups for ideas on job creation. They don’t have any and they seem not to care about workers or forest-based communities. What happens to those folks and their communities is no concern of theirs. I'd like to say I believed better of them, but the overwhelming evidence says it’s true.

So, if you find yourself, as so many of our mem- bers are these days, on a land-use round-table, in- sist on “no net job loss in the forest sector” as a key position or interest. That means that either the proposed parks or other protected areas must be located so that they don’t impact our members’ jobs or that real jobs are in place to replace the af- fected ones. “Real” jobs means backed up with in- vestment capital, markets, technology and all the

“ other things that will

speaker supported a plan for a 250,000 hectare park in B.C.’s Lower Mainland by sug- gesting that everyone, including forest work- ers, stands to benefit from WCWC’s plans. We wrote to WCWC asking them to specify

What happens to workers or forest-based communities is of no concern to environmental groups

make them fly...and a collective agreement. No jobs, no parks.

In the words of our new I.W.A. CANADA Forest Policy:

“.. . carefully scruti- nize all proposals for removal of lands from the working forest. They must be justified

job-creation measures ae replace those the park would eliminate. No re- ply.

In reply to an article in the B.C. Environment Network's newsletter that reported enthusiastical- ly the Suzuki Foundation report mentioned above, I outlined .W.A. CANADA’s position on jobs, tech change and forest-sector employment issues. I ended with the usual challenge: “We would love to see any suggestions you might have toward (a healthy forest industry), particularly if they meant continued high wages and decent benefits, im- proved safety standards and better working condi- tions.” BCEN published the letter, but no sugges- tions were forthcoming.

That's largely because you get a better, clearer indication of their position with respect to jobs when you read a recent news release from several of B.C.’s leading environmental groups. They urged the B.C. government to let Evans Forest Products Ltd. go into bankruptcy, thus killing 500 jobs and taking the towns of Golden and Malakwa with them. Fortunately, the provincial government ignored the greens and the mills are now re- opened.

Many of the same organizations have now launched new campaigns: the scary federal Endan- gered Species Protection Act; efforts to halt tim-

as essential to the bio- physical well-being of the forests; they must be shown to be better candidates than others that do not require disruption of the forest industry. We will particularly reject proposals based on aesthet- ic, cosmetic or other considerations that lack any scientific basis.” i

Remember, although you might care about your job, your family or your community, the folks you ‘will be facing across the table do not share your

concerns. RR

UBC’s Pat Marchak wrote recently, unhappy that my November, 1996 column could ve tae to imply that she is among Canadian ot lone groups or individuals who have received U.S. om dation dollars to carry on their propaganda paigns against the forest sector. I apologize for any misunderstanding: I was suggesting not that Dr. Sareter receives U.S. foundation One a

at she is among those “trying to undermine - ments about the fared sector's ability to support jobs.” My criticism of the content of her speech at the World Commission on Forestry in Winnipeg, of course, stands,

Kim Pollock is the Director of I.W.A. CANADA’s

Environment and Land-Use Department.

4/LUMBERWORKER/APRIL, 1997