PRESIDE MESSAGE

Clear direction needed for work partnerships

by Dave Haggard

hen MacMillan Bloedel intro- duced co-design and co-man- agement into its coastal oper- ations in British Columbia last year, the move was unex- pected by our union. Our mem- bership was simply told to take it or leave it. Take it and the plant or logging operation will remain open or leave it and MB would keep the operation closed down indefinitely.

Given those two choices it isn’t hard to see why our members did everything they could to keep operating and participated in MB’s new management scheme. When you have a gun pointed at your head there is not much choice to be had.

Go with it our members did, on a division by division basis, and the results to date have been largely positive. Our members have made sure that their collective agreements have stayed in place and that the new co- design and co-management arrangements would work for the mutual benefit of both sides — both the I.W.A. and the company.

Although the results are positive to date, I would argue that they won’t last because the I,W.A. and MB are not yet real partners. But we are moving in the right direction with one operation, the Chemainus division sawmill,

where the crew is proceeding with a jointly developed and negotiated 18- month trail part-

nership. In our view the Chemainus ap-

proach — true part- nership negotiated between the union and the company — is the way to go.

In November of last year our union sent a contingent of national and local union officers down to the United States to study and learn about the Interna- tional Association of Machinists’ “High Performance Work Organizations” which are a type of co-man- agement partnership. We went to various operations, including Weyerhaeuser and

arley Davidson motorcycles and saw processes in place. é :

We learned the IAM only participates in such programs if there is a commitment to job security with a goal of growing the busi- ness and that there must be true collabora- tion in the planning and performance of pro- duction processes. “

Earlier this month, we held a conference in Vancouver, where we took what we learned from the IAM and combined it with our expe- riences. A group of some 50 I.W.A. officers and staff debated and discussed what I.W.A. partnerships would look like.

During the run- to this year’s the I.W.

continue working with local unions to come up with a clear direc- tion for our national union on workplace partnerships. We hope to develop a clear pro- gram, supported by a national policy to be presented and debated at the convention to be held in Sault Ste. Marie in September.

With an I.W.A.-made program we can be

roactive. We can chal- lees the employers who try to draw us into co- management schemes to ensure that partner- sep arrangements that we participate in are based on true part- nership, not B.S. ones.

We can also take our program to employers who are still in the dark ages and help them change and grow.

No matter where I.W.A. members work, be they in logging camps, mills, credit unions, or warehouses, those union members in those operations are the people who will ultimately decide their own futures in an ever-changing work world. But they need to have informa- tion and they need to have choices.

It is our job to make sure that workers are not just idle passengers on the boss’ co-man- agement boat. We have to have the tools to decide whether we Ren Be want to row the boat or if we want to be the ones steering it.

national officers will |

LANDS AND FORES

Marketing plan is crucial for Canada

f we’re going to produce forest products, we also have to market them. Right now, we face some serious challenges in all our major markets. That’s why this union is working very hard to involve industry, provincial governments and the federal government in better ways to market our for- est products.

The stakes are huge, after all. Forest prod- ucts are Canada’s largest single source of export earnings, not to mention employment or government revenues.

Forest product exports amounted to $39 bil- lion in 1997, contributing $31.8 billion to Canada’s balance of trade and $18.1 billion to the gross national product.

The United States is Canada’s largest sin- gle market, accounting for 74 percent of our total exports in 1997, ranging from 91 percent for Manitoba and 96 percent for Ontario, down to 59 percent for British Columbia.

Canada’s access to that market is, of course, restricted by the Canada-U.S. Softwood Lum- ber Agreement. Producers in the four major lumber producing provinces — B.C., Alberta, Ontario and Quebec — are affected by the quo- tas set by the agreement. Any market access beyond a firm’s assigned quota is subject to countervailing duty. At lower prices, such as those prevailing during much of the past year, many firms cannot afford to pay the “ticket” price.

U.S. companies enjoy considerable political clout in Washington and they give no indica- tion they are in a less protectionist mood as we move into the two years leading up to renegotiation of the treaty in 2001. In fact, a recent action by U.S. producers against pre- drilled studs from B.C. shows quite the oppo- site.

Moreover, in the U.S. there are growing signs that green groups in the U.S. are also doing their best to undermine Canadian exports into the American market. In Decem- ber a coalition of groups, including Green- peace, ran an ad in The New York Times attacking B.C. forest practices. It claimed the support of nearly 30 U.S. corporations, includ-

ing some big ones: IBM, Bristol Myers Squib, 3M and so on.

Our union singled our Hallmark Cards Inc. of| Kansas City, Mo., for

"| attention. We warned Hallmark that Green-

peace and friends were using their corporate name to undermine our » | communities and jobs and that the claims being made about our forest products were untrue: they had 48 hours to recant or face pre-Christmas picket lines — not-so-jolly I.W.A. members with a not so cheery message for Hallmark customers and retail outlets.

Following phone discussions with I.W.A. and B.C. chief forester

The conference ended with a declaration from the dele atcs to support each other against unfounded forest campaigns.

In fact, certification is another trade area where our union is working hard to protect Canadian interests. We have, of course been active since the beginning in Canada’s own Canadian ‘Standards Association Sustainable Forest Initiative.

Now, with so many companies looking into or actually striving for Forest Stewardship Council certification, our union really has no choice but to also ensure that workers and their communities are protected in that process: Since the certification meeting in

onn, Germany, we have twice met FSC inter- national executive director Tim Synnott to discuss the upcoming FSC standard for British Columbia and FSC’s other Canadian initia- tives in New Brunswick and Ontario.

We have made clear

Larry Pedersen, Hall- mark suddenly changed. its position, saying that B.C. forest practices are OK and that our long-

communities deserve Hallmark’s support, after all.

Soon, many other companies on the list agreed: either Green- peace and its allies mis- used their names or

The I.W.A. is working on standing ferestbaee, Several fronts to ensure that ducers, it Canadian forest products

are marketed throughout the world.

to Synnott our con- cerns about FSC; that it must offer similar deals to Canadian pro- gave Swedish companies recently; that it must not act as a de facto non-tariff trade bar- rier etd that the power of green groups must be moderated within FSC and its

misconstrued their positions. That doesn’t mean that this new turn in the campaign is a thing of the past: we can likely expect other “boardroom blitz” tactics as corporations try to win “brownie points” from consumers who know little about the reality of the forest industry and hear most of their information from liars like Greenpeace.

In Europe, which buys about 10 percent of Canada’s forest exports, planned green boy- cotts are also a serious threat. That’s wh: I.W.A. has worked hard to make links ane unions in European Union countries. We know that the unions are more likely to understand our concerns than are other elements in soci- ety. And we know they have strong links to the socialist and social democratic parties that govern much of Europe.

At the forest certification conference Dave Haggard and I attended in Germany last fall, an important part of our time there was spent making links with German trade unionists, in particular, as well as Green and Social Democ- ratic members of Parliament who have strong

links to labour.

councils. So far it’s clear that no dealings with FSC will be a pic- nic; but progress is being made. The test will come when FSC ae out its draft regional piandard for B.C., likely some time next month.

Finally, then, there is Japan. That market

also takes about 10 percent of what Canada produces mainly from coastal British Colum- ia. Those firms were hit, first when the Japanese market collapsed in late 1997 and again because U.S. producers were more able — again, blame the softwood agreement — to sell back into their own marekt lumber that otherwise would have gone to Japan. Meanwhile, Canadian companies struggle to eee their share of the Japanese market, which will likely rebound slightly this year. Our union is currently working with compa- nies and the B.C. government to persuade Ottawa to support coastal producers trying to improve markets for B.C. hemlock in Japan.

Kim Pollock is the Direct Envi sae Public Policy for LWA. eta Gee ro

(A 4/LUMBERWORKER/MARCH, 1999