ELLIOT LAKE — Blasting the Ontario government for trying to whitewash unsafe working ‘conditions in the area’s uranium mines, the United Steelworkers issued a leaflet, appropriately titled “Whitewash”. The pam- phlet accuses the Tory govern- ment of trying “to convince peo- ple that the serious health pro- blem of the Elliot Lake miners is. over.”

The pamphlet was sent to’ all the homes of Elliot Lake in res- ponse to a leaflet produced by ‘the provincial government and signed by the ministers of health and natural resources and the chairman : of -the Workman’s Compensation Board, which was also sent to the homes of Elliot Lake.

In a 13 point exposé of the government whitewash, the Steelworkers told the real story the government is hiding from the miners and their families in Elliot Lake.

Quoting the Government leaf- let stating that less than 2% of the miners examined had silico- sis, the Steelworkers pamphlet showed that when all the cases

#

‘Above: Silicosis victim and former miner from Elliot’ Lake. United Stealecitehs leaflet, Whitewash, blasts the Ontario government and its recent pamphlet, for attempting to play down the unsafe working conditions in Elliot Lake’s uranium mines, were silicosis is one of a number of diseases that plague

miners.

of respiratory problems were taken into account the real fig- ure pointing to serious health problems was one in six. Answering the government claim that every working miner examined was still capable of doing normal work, the union stated that 40 Elliot Lake miners had died of lung cancer from the unsafe working conditions in the mines. As to the cleanliness of the mines the leaflet pointed out that recently officials of Deni- son Mines informed the Steel- workers local safety committee that the mine could not meet the new provincial health standards for exposure to radiation. Furth- er, the union labeled as a lie the government claim that high radiation exposures were a thing of the past. , Quoting Prof. Fred Knelman an unpaid adviser to the union in his report to the Royal Com- mission on the Mines earlier this year, the union pointed out that no level of exposure to radia- tion is really safe. The union went on to show that where the government’s old recommended radiation exposure levels produc- ed three times the number of

- — ewok

lung cancer deaths that were ex- pected in Elliot Lake, the new so-called ‘“‘safe’”’ levels establish- ed by the government in 1975, according to scientific research, will mean twice the number of cancer deaths.

The miners’ leaflet also lashes out at the inadequacy of com- pensation to encourage sick miners to re-train. In the past, the union claimed, re-training meant that. the miner lived on unemployment insurance losing his seniority, fringe benefits, and pension credits. The,union de- mands full wages and benefits as the only practical and fair way to encourage sick miners to re-locate and re-train. :

' What is: evident from this union leaflet is that the union and the miners want less talk about how pleasant working conditions are in the mines by the government and more action in the direction of tougher en- forcement of standards, new

rights for safety committees to

take their own air and radiation samples, investigate all unsafe conditions and close down all operations that are too dan- ~ gerous.

/ /

_ =

Z

#

Peterborough workers strike to better wages and benefits)

By MIKE PHILLIPS

PETERBOROUGH — Workers at the Raybestos - Manhattan plant here are entering their fifth week of strike against. this ma- nufacturer of break linings for automobiles. - Better wages, a cost-cf-living clause, ahd an im- provement on their petisions are the chief issues in this dispute.

The workers, members of Lo- cal 5141 United Steelworkers want $1.80 over two years with a good cost-of-living clause. Alf Maio, picket captain, stated that great strides would have to be made in the area of pension im- provement. To illustrate this, he cited the example of an em-

‘ployee who recently retired on

$91 per month after 35 years of service. :

Another irritating issue for the 94 preduction workers is the

_company’s proposal to’ initiate

“job slotting.” This would mean a graduated pay scale for differ- ent jobs in the plant above the company’s offer of 65 cents over two years. The feeling among

the workers is that there are no -

jobs in the plant that coulnd’t be

done by everyone already em- .

ployed, and that this is a com- pany tactic to divide them as well as: get away with a cheap settlement. According to Alf Maio, if the company’s plan were to be adopted it would mean only an average wage in- crease of 3 to 5 cents an hour. Health Hazards Looming in the background of

this strike is the issue of health -

and safety with regard to the ef- fects of working in asbestos. The Workman’s Compensation Board has confirmed that it has files on seven Raybestos-Man- hattan workers who have con- tracted asbestosis since 1947. Caused by inhaling too much as-

“pestos dust, asbestosis is an ir- ~

reversible lung disease which has claimed the lives of eight workers in this Peterborough subsidiary of the U.S.-owned manufacturer.

A ninth victim is presently

still employed with the firm but’

- clause, and said that the unio!)

is collecting a partial disabilll pension. 7

Union officials have criticize) the government’s regulation) and standards for the plant) They want to see mandatofl) dust levels in Ontario asbest0)

ment has issued as a guidelin a maximum of two fibres p& cubic centimeter of factory all) The provincial ministry has-! commended the level be droppel) to 0.2 but the labor ministry h@) not yet decided on the reques! At present there are no regl lations in the province prohibit) ing maximum readings. Results| of readings taken around a Pp?) tentially hazardous area show®) readings of from five to eigl! times the provincial thresholé) guidelines. The readings wé taken in February, April 2 May of 1974, and shown union officials at a meeting df the company-union ‘safety com) mittee on Sept. 7, 1974. .° Pretty Bad In the U.S. a maximum read) ing of 10 is enough to allow government to close a_ plal) down and the law requires avel) age dust levels to be below tw fibres per c.c. of air. j Seven fatalities in a plant em) ploying fewer than 100 peopl! over a period of 35 years We) described as “pretty bad” Di} John Dement, a researcher will) the U.S. federal. agency whi polices the asbestos level law) in that country. ‘ However, the union has bee? clearly pointing out that the & sue of safety, important as it is one which has to be fought!) out through public pressure 0 the government to change 4, existing legislation on dv5) levels. : Union president Bill Nadeal| addressing the Peterborous)| Labor Council, said that the real strike issues were money, a pe) sion plan, and cost-of-livinb

would continue to press 0

safety legislation.

QUEBEC'S BILL 24

Serious danger to all working people |

By HERVE FUYET

The Quebec Government’s draft Bill 24, already submitted to the Advisory ‘Council on Labor and Manpower, will soon go to the National Assembly. While the draft bill takes the innocuous form of amendments to the actual labor code, it would, in fact, take away all real power from the trade unions. It is a serious danger for all working people.

At present, the labor code forbids strikes and work slow- downs while a collective agree- ment is in effect. It lets the gov- ernment alone define essential services where strikes are for- bidden. It permits, through in- junctions, the levying of heavy fines and prison sentences for any infraction of the numerous laws, ordinances and regulations already in existence.

But the amendments are more far reaching. For example, ar- ticle 55a of Bill 24 which would become article 94a of the labor code reads: “No one should start a strike, and no wage earn- er should be on strike, before a

secret taken of all wage earners in-

cluded in the bargaining unit

and . .. the majority of these wage earners has voted to strike.

Vote Every 90 Days

Furthermore “When 90 days have elapsed since the beginning of the strike, and every 90 days thereafter, the workers‘ associa- tion has to submit to the wage earners included in the bargain- ing unit the last offers of the employer and must hold a secret ballot vote on whether to accept or reject these offers.”

This is a hypocritical way to make almost any strike illegal because an absolute majority, not only of the voters, but of all the members of the bargaining unit, whether or not they are members of the union, must be in favor of the strike. Further- more, anyone could contest the legality of a strike and this at the union’s expense ~ (article 50a). Finally, the employer would have to be warned 72 hours in advance, in writing, be- fore a strike can start.

PACIFIC TRIBUNE—JUNE 20, 1975—Page 8

ballot vote has been

A well-known politician was writing a few years ago... “If the right to strike is suppressed or seriously limited, the trade union movement becomes no- thing more than an institution among many others at the ser- vice of capitalism.” (Pierre El- liott Trudeau (Cité Libre).

Any Pretext

With this, we have many in- junctions in perspective. If the minister of - justice decides to sue under the criminal code pro- visions, disobedience to an in- junction can become a “crime,” (precedents: to Tilco Plastics. strike, Ontario 1965, United Fishermen strike, British Colum- bia 1967). It happens that article ‘19 (g.a.) “forbids anybody con- victed of a criminal-act . . . to hold a leadership position in, or

to be employed by a union,” and -

demands his immediate replace- ment and the rescinding of any decisions he could have made.

Any militant judged a “cri- minal’ could also be if convicted of an altercation with the police or with scabs on a picket line, without speaking of possible ac-

cusations of libel, or even’ an infraction of the highway code. As the Human Rights League rightly said, we don’t ask so much of a senator or minister!

The government will not be short of information to apply its law. According to article 19 of Bill .24, all union locals must give ‘name, address, citizenship of every leader by the general

‘commissioner of labor” (19a2g)

as well as “a certified copy... of the financial status presented in the form and containing the information determined by the presiding lieutenant - governor” (19 a2g). - : Repressive Government

To top it all, any change must

be reported within 15 days,

otherwise a fine of up to $100 a

day for the local and $50 for its president will be imposed. Unions would have to devote a good part of their resources to the

. creation of a special department

only to meet these obligations.

Jerome Choquette, minister of “police” said at the National Assembly on May 14 concerning the bludgeoning of the 34 occu-

“ pants of United Aircraft: | hope this will serve as an exa™ | ple for the future.” at

We understand the milital Hie of the National Trade ua r Centre. who voted at a spé meeting on May 18 in Que?” | City ‘to take every action, # cluding the general strike, inf prevent such a policy from bé ; implemented,” . . . “and to U ip with the other labor bodies t common actions.” It is clear Bill 24 is part of a general policy of bludgeoning the trade uni? movement, of “war against © | unions” to talk like Robert Boy rassa. Guy St. Pierre, minis of commerce and industry, S# recently that “the actual role f the government is to defend the employers .. .” : t

Communists, and the mos) class-conscious workers in ge?’ ral must mobilize and strength itt the unity of their unions, the) democratic organizations # the population in general t prevent the passage of this m2 un-democratic and even fas¢ law, as they did against passage of Bill 89 in 1972.

=. —

Ses 3