e Continued from Page 5

one honorable exception. The Canadian Brotherhood of Railway, Transport and General Workers, held out for a few days, long enough to conduct a vote among their members.

However, with such a split between the leadership and union ranks, any chance of conducting a united strug- gle in defiance of the parliamentary edict and of strike-breaking as official government policy was undermined. In these circumstances the vote among the members of the CBRT&GW, the largest and most militant of the non- op unions, could not be anything else but a majority for return to work.

Had it not been for the capitulation at the last minute of the top leader- ship, it is safe to say that few work- ers would have returned to work. The workers rightly blamed nine months of fruitless negotiations, abortive con- ciliation and mediation, and finally a strike, squarely* on government com- mitments to support the railway com- panies and other monopolies, and the profiteering and inflation directly emanating therefrom.

THOUSANDS REFUSE TO COMPLY

As it was, and with all the heavy odds against them, thousands of work- ers in Thunder Bay, Winnipeg, Cal- gary and Vancouver and as_ well as Fort Erie and Windsor, defied the strike-breaking edict and stayed on strike for nearly two weeks. When the last holdouts in B.C. voted to re- turn to work under pressure of charg- es made under Section 115 of the Cri- minal Code, carrying a penalty of two years imprisonment and heavy fines, they did so on two conditions. They will work to rule and all charges against strikers must be dropped. By this time charges had already been laid, or were being contemplated against hundreds of strikers in B.C. and some in Thunder Bay, Ontario. But the government got the message and decided to drop all charges.

COMPANY-GOVERNMENT

COLLUSION ADMITTED

One point is worth remembering, as clear evidence of government-railway

ere

Sexi xi

#Ail

es

pow

4

4

RAILWAY PRESIDENT $75 000 Pe RAILWAY WORKER

37500 MINUS~ -

companies collusion. A justice depart- ment spokesman admitted that the names of strikers against whom charg- es were laid or contemplated were not being selected by his department but were drafted according to a list he re- ceived from the railway companies.

CORPORATE LIES—COVER-UP FOR PROFITEERING

It is political hogwash and an insult to public intelligence to suggest — as one high CPR official did — that the picayune and demeaning 17.6% increase in pay over two years granted to rail- way workers in the strike-breaking bill will “lend a serious inflationary push to the economy” of the country. In- ability to pay was not a valid reason or excuse for the railway companies provocation of a strike, thus depriving the country of a vital public service.

At the time of negotiations in 1973 the growth of the railway industry proved to be much larger than the average growth of the Canadian econ- omy as a whole. The tremendous in- crease in productivity on the railways is illustrated by the fact that in 15 years ending in 1971, the number of non-operating railway employees de- creased by 37%, while employment in durable goods industries increased by 17%.

ECONOMIC SQUEEZE ON THE WORKER

The average hourly earnings of non- operating railway workers as of De- cember last year was. 41 cents less per hour than the average hourly earn- ings by workers in the durable goods industries. Traditionally the average earnings in the durable goods indus- tries have been used to compare rates and earnings of non-operating railway workers. This shows how far railway workers’ earnings have fallen behind during the past decade.

The non-operating unions’ nominee on the conciliation board showed that if railway workers’ wages were adjust- ed only to account for the actual in- flation this year (assuming that the inflation for the last six months of the year equals that of the first six months) the railway workers would have to get an increase of 34 cents

WAY PRESIDENT PLUS WORKE

5.000

Pius Mise.

“The average hourly earnings of non-operating railway workers as of December last year was 41 cents less per hour than the average hourly earnings by workers

in the.durable goods industries.”

PACIFIC TRIBUNE — FRIDAY, OCTOBER 5, 1973 — PAGE 6 ©

out limit.

railway industry.

eae the 1973 strike.

(The struggle for better pensions in 1971-72

In February, 1971, the then Finance Minister, Edgar Benson, recom- mended changes in federal pension regulations under the Pension Benefits Standards Act so as to allow the CPR 60 years, instead of 25 years, to fund employees’ pensions. The CNR, a crown corporation, already had this privi- lege. Over half-a-century without a fully funded pension plan. Incredible, you say. So how come that the union leaders agreed?

Because union representatives apparently assumed that if there was going to be a saving for the CPR due to 60-year funding, those savings would be passed on to the workers because the CPR promised improved pensions for 43,000 employees, 10,000 pensioners and 5,000 pensioners’ widows. Since the pension plan was controlled by the company and not negotiable, support for 60-year funding was considered important in the bid for better pensions. Most union members were sceptical and saw the ‘move as yet another swindle by both the company and the government.

The announcement of pension impr turn out to be a disappointment. The one and one-quarter percent pension benefit per year of service was raised to one and one-half percent. The railway workers sought TWO percent. Besides, the CPR’s formula was retro- active only to January 1, 1956, while the CNR’s formula is retroactive with-

ovements by the CPR, later on, did

The subsequent struggle over better pensions during 1971 and 1972 has to be seen in the light of the rapid decimation of the work force in the

A powerful pension association movement was organized and grew to over 40,000 activists and supporters across the country. At one point the Ontario Northland Railway was closed down in a few days’ strike over the issue. At the same time Railway Workers’ Councils grew.up from coast to coast, acting as liaison bodies between various railway workers’ unions at the local level. This laid the basis for rank-and-file unity in the course sf

per hour to equal the same buying power they had when their contracts expired last December.

UNIONS COMPROMISED THEIR OWN CASE

In spite of this the unions’ nominee, Professor J. C. Weldon, recomended only a 5.45% increase to offset inflation, which for the year ending June 30 was more than 8%. He also proposed a 3.34% increase as railway workers’ share of the growth in the national economy, and only an increase of 2%

. as catch-up payment to compensate for

part of the gap between railway work- ers and workers in the durable goods industries. Obviously a much too con- servative proposal, adding up to only 38 cents an hour increase for this year, retroactive to January 1, 1973, plus an equal amount in 1974, or 10.8% for each year of a two year contract.

The blame for the conservative union position on the conciliation board be- longs to the top union joint negotiat- ing team, which had come down far too much from an original 15% de- mand for each year to the point of having no room to negotiate, while the railway companies refused to budge.

The strike-breaking bill adopted by parliament granted a basic 9.6% in- crease this year and 8% next year, for a total of 17.6% increase in wages for the non-ops over a two-year period ending December 31, 1974. This is almost identical to the 17% legislated increase back in 1966.

This does not meet the rise in living .

costs of 8.6% by June 30, let -alone giving railway workers a share of

- increased income, plus needed catch-

up payment to bring them up to the pay of workers in other similar occu- pations.

In addition to the 56,000 Associated Non-operating Unions, the legislation barring further strike action this time around, applies also to 36,000 Feder- ated Shopcraft Unions and 14,000 train crews belonging to the United Trans- portation ‘Union (UTU).

TAKE HOME PAY BELOW $100 PER WEEK

In terms of dollars and cents, the non-ops will now get an increase from $3.54 average per hour to $4.19 per hour at the end of next year. This is 4¢ per hour more than the $4.15 re- comended by the Liberal government, as a result of a Stanfield amendment, which ‘both the Liberals and Tories voted for. The NDP’s proposal would have added 15 cents more to make it $4.34 per hour, average, by the end of next year.

In terms of weekly pay, the non-ops

will get an increase from the present $141.60 to $155.20 retroactive to Jam uary 1 of this year. By January 1, next year, it will go up to $165.20, and by July 1, next, it will reach $167.20 average pay per week. These are the money wages.

These rates of pay. are subject t0 deductions for taxes and all and sun dry other deductions, so that home pay now between $80 and per week, will probably still be some- where at or below $100 average Pe week.

(A Thornhill woman, wife of s junior clerk with a take home pay 9 | $86 per week, told the Toronto Stal (Sept. 4) she would support hef’ hus: band if he voted to continue the strike: This woman works as a registratio? consultant at the University of Torom™ to and earns $5,500 per year. She #s reported saying: “It is ridiculous that I’m making more than he is,” spea ing of her railway worker husband.) |

Such sub-standard wages for wo ers in this vital and essential industtY is not only unfair exploitation of eat: workers directly concerned, but is ¢€ rimental to the country’s economy 2 to the public interest.

A POLICY OF—"THE PUBLIC INTEREST BE DAMNED!

Liberal Labor Minister John Munk says he favors compulsory arbitral when the “public interest” is invol¥ oo In reality he protects private profitee” and monopoly interests, who are ' saboteurs of the public interest. 4

Besides driving down living se 4 ards in the postwar years, the rail? ie companies have thrown tens of i sands of workers out of their J° i abandoned thousands of miles of ¥ | way tracks and left communities ia a) die from lack of services—all in thé terest of monopoly profits.

BOTH WORKERS AND . COMMUNITY ABANDONE

ith which The reckless abandon with aekers

this has been done has made W that and the public the victims. rather 4. beneficiaries of modernization ane ot, tionalization in the railway ind ced The federal government has facili (0: ae this by legislative and financial a og the companies. The closing d0 anc! what are called “uneconomical’ bre eae lines, as well as curtailment © Pr senger and package freight servic’ 950) 4 main lines, has accelerated since ee when the first postwar railway * ing was suppressed by strike-bre#

legislation. : pans? ; - The issue of technological se of and rationalization has become tint and only concern from the vie

Nene ti a on aaa aii llamar Lt