WRITER QUESTIONS ARTICLE

THE EDITOR:

I just finished reading the Shorter Work Week article by Doug Smyth, Regional Research Director. As I read Mr. Smyth’s article the theme that came through time and again was his concern of the cost and inconvenience to management of a shorter work week. He gave figures of costs to the companies of any type of added paid holi- days on shorter working hours for IWA members.

He also states “the numbers of weeks of annual vacation provided for given levels of seniority are quite high.” Not at all, Mr. Smyth, when you figure the years of CONTINUOUS seniority to get these holi- days. It saddens me to see this type of conservatism coming to me through my own union paper.

The forty-hour work week has been with us far too long. Let us hope that our union officials start worrying about the IWA people in the woods and mills more-so than the costs and inconvenience to the boss. Our paid union staff should only be interested in the well-being of the members. Their job is not to discourage members who are trying to fight for better working conditions. Their job is to show us the way.

Mike Lazare Plant Committee Member Chemainus Sawmill

Local 1-80

DOUG SMYTH’S REPLY:

Mr. Lazare’s comment is an unfortunate interpretation of the article on the Shorter Work Week. The purpose of the article is indeed “‘to show the membership the way” — as he suggests it should be. In both the second and last paragraphs the article points out that, as the industry secures increased productivity during the 1980s, “‘it is important that some of the benefits be used to secure a reduction in the hours that an employee must work in order to achievea desirable standard of living.”

Most of the article is devoted to a discus- sion of the options which are available for securing shorter working time. My com- ments on the current vacation clause in IWA agreements are for the purpose of showing its disadvantages relative to an accumulated time-off plan: namely, that job turnover causes many individuals to lose seniority and vacation rights; and that annual vacations do not provide the flexibil- ity of scheduling one-day-off at a time. My statement that the schedule of vacation benefits under the IWA agreement is high relative to most other collective agreements in North America is correct and it stands. The point is, however, that in spite of the high levels of benefits and costs, vacation benefits are not available to all IWA members on an equal basis. ba

Mr. Lazare also states that he is sensitive

to my statement of the costs of a program of ® accumulated time off. He should under-

stand that the costing of the demands which we perform during negotiations serves two purposes. In the first place, it is an extremely useful check on dishonest and incorrect calculations by employers who are only too inclined to refuse a union demand on the grounds that “it costs too much.” The second function of costing is to assist the negotiating committee to determine what is attainable during each set of negotiations. Each bargaining year the committee 1s faced with the task of attempting to win a large list of demands which would be too

costly to secure in one contract year. Know- ing the costs of each demand can provide valuable assistance in sorting out priorities.

Although all of the Union demands have merit, it is important to recognize that most British Columbia wood products are sold in highly competitive international markets. The labour cost component is therefore a crucial factor in maintaining sales of B.C. lumber and plywood in these markets. For example, two-thirds of B.C. lumber is con- sumed by the U.S. housing industry. During the industry turndown which took place in 1980, B.C.lumber sales were protected by the poor exchange value of the Canadian dollar. Because sales are made in U.S. dollars, the lower Canadian dollar permit- ted B.C. lumber to be extremely price competitive in 1980. As a result, [WA layoffs in B.C. ranged between 11 and 15 per cent during most of the first half of 1980, while IWA layoffs in the United States rose as high as 50 per cent. This situation contrasts sharply with the 1975 industry turndown, when the U.S. and Canadian dollars were almost at par. At that time approximately one-third of IWA members in British Columbia suffered layoffs.

In the case of plywood, 80 per cent of which is sold in Canada, intense cost competition is being felt from new types of panel products, such as waferboard.

Finally, it should be pointed out that many unions in other industries in North America have suffered severe layoffs dur- ing 1980. The problem has become so serious tht some of these unions have negotiated reductions in wages in order to keep their members employed. Those reduc- tions were not caused by weak trade unions, but by an extremely difficult set of economic circumstances facing their industries.

In view of these economic realities it is extremely important for the membership to establish a clear set of priorities when they draw up their demands for the 1981 contract negotiations. Presenting a long and costly list of demands to the negotiating commit- tee actually plays into the hands of the employer. Such a list permits him‘to make minor concessions on a large number of items while neglecting the Union’s most important demands. If the IWA is serious about securing a form of shorter working time in 1981, then it is important to draft a set of demands which will permit the negotiating committee to give it the priority it deserves.

CORPORATE BEHAVIOR

The U.S. firm that owns Houdaille Indus- tries in Oshawa pleaded poverty when workers asked for fair severance benefits because the plant was closing. Now it’s revealed that the firm — Kohlberg-Kravis Roberts and Company (KKR) — is ona $900 million spending spree.

KKR is offering to buy three major U.S. companies in a move that Basil Hargrove, administrative assistant to the UAW direc- tor for Canada, describes as “the kind of corporate behavior that reinforces what we've been saying all along — the U.S. owners of Houdaille are in business to make money and they don’t care how they do it.”

Meanwhile, the Oshawa operation has been sold to A. G. Simpson, a Canadian company, leaving about 160 workers with an uncertain future. UAW international representative Steve Nimigon says that it appears the plant is being mothballed for the moment. A. G. Simpson is expected to take it over December 15, but the new owner has not said what plans it has for re- opening the plant.

IWA LOCAL WINS STRIKE

The 500 members of Local 2-600 IWA, who have been on strike at the Amoco Fabrics plant in Hawkesbury, Ontario, since the middle of May, have returned to work following the signing of a new two-year agreement.

Wages were the main issue in the dispute. The settlement calls for general wage increases of 75 cents an hour effective December 31, 1979; 60 cents an hour effec- tive December 31, 1980; a further increase of 10 cents an hour effective April 1, 1981; and a final 10 cents an hour June 1, 1981.

In announcing the terms of settlement, Region 2 President J. M. Bedard stated that the financial contributions made by IWA Local Unions throughout the International were an important factor in the Amoco strikers being victorious.

CONGRESS PRODUCES FILM

The Canadian Labour Congress has produced a 9'!4-minute slide show on the On-the-Job canvass. It is the first of a series that will include ones on canvassing and the parallel campaign. It is an excellent instruc- tion aid that has been well received at all its showings. At this time, itis available only in English.

Copies of the On-the-Job canvass slide show can be purchased for $50 from the Canadian Labour Congress Political Edu- cation Department.

There will be two copies in all regional office for use in schools if you wish to show them.

neers

Lumber Worker/Nov.-Dec., 1980/3