rop, P

Ps (een)

Damage suit against fishermen

spurs labor act change demand

A court judgment of $108,000 levelled against the United Fishermenand Allied Workers Union sparked renewed demands for the immediate repeal of all anti-labor legislation from dele- gates to the Vancouver and Dis- trict Labor Council Tuesday night.

The judgment stems froma damage suit launched by fishing companies and private vessel owners during a strike in 1967. The Supreme Court of Canada re- jected the union’s final appeal on March 22, 1973.

Ina letter to the labor council, UFAWU president Homer Stevens stated that the judg-

MAY DAY SPEAKER. Featured speaker at the May Day rally set for Sun., Apr. 29 at 2 p.m. at City Hall Square will be Jean Pare,

vice president of the Electrical -

Workers Union of Montreal. The program will include other trade union leaders and a program of folk songs. Tuesday night the Vancouver Labor Council named its secretary-treasurer Jack Lawrence to attend a conference May 18 to discuss plans for the May Day rally.. ;

ment ‘‘clearly identifies the Trade Unions Act (Bill 43) and the Labor Relations Act as the legislation upon which ‘the massive penalties rest.”

‘““Fhis year, all our major con- tracts are open affecting shore- workers, tendermenand salmon fishermen,’ Stevens said. ‘‘Employers and their stooges, using the precedent of the Supreme Court ruling and the continued existence of the Trade Unions Act and punitive features of the Labor Relations Act, can attack at will.”

Both Homer Stevens and Steve Stavenes, former UFAWU presi- dent, spent a year in jail for contempt convictions arising out of the use of injunctions in the 1967 strike. The union was also fined $25,000 plus costs.

The legislation is particularly oppressive to fishermen because, in union secretary Jack Nichol’s words ‘we arenot given the protection of the Trade Unions Act but we are subject to the punitive sections init.”

Homer Stevens called on all tradeunions, alllabor councils and the B.C. Federation of Labor to ‘‘insist upon meetings withthe Premier, the Minister of Labor and all members of the government.” “Labor knows enough is enough, he declared, “the government which organized labor helped to elect must now get the message—a message contained in its own election program.”

Delegates to the council endorsed a motion reiterating the position of the council and the Federation demanding the immediate repeal of all anti- labor legislation.

Labor minister King’s question- able ‘labor managementrela- tions conference” came up again in Tuesday s meeting, although it has now been moved to the Empress Hotel because of the

PACIFIC TRIBUNE—FRIDAY, APRIL 6, 1973—PAGE 12

length of the Legislative session. 3

The council reiterated its previous position to concur with the B.C. Federation of Labor on the conference. Earlier the Federation had agreed thatits own executive council would attend on behalf of all labor. Council president Syd Thompson pointed out that ‘‘except fora few doubtfuls’’ this position is being adhered to by the trade union movement,

Thompson also called for government intervention in the 10 month old shingle workers strike. ;

By H.K. WARREN

“Net earnings of the industry reached an all time high in 1971, up 45% from 1970. It is expected that 1972 profits willbe notless than 1971.”’

‘‘Meat packing companies paid out over 50% of their income in dividends last year (1971) — an unusually high percentage.”

“Wages and salaries ac counted for only 10¢ of every dollar of sales of the meat pack- ing companies and 14¢ for meat processing firms’ sales in 1971. Costs of employee benefit programs only represent a very small share of the sales dollar.”

There you have it. Straight from the steer’s mouth — the financial report of the Ameri- can Meat Institute.

In short, contrary to the propa- ganda put out through the media, profits of the meat industry have boomed while the wage costs involved in production have declined — and_ sub- stantially at that.

According to the Meat Insti- tute, wages accounted for 11.3% of total sales in 1964; in 1968, they had dropped to 10% and by 1971 had dropped even further to 9.6%.

The Meat Packers Council Of Canada isa littlemore reticent, failing to show percentages by years but it does say that wages represent 124% of total sales.

Information Canada, in a cata- logue from November 1971, reveals costs that parallel the American meat production figures. In the catalogue, wages for 1963 represent 11.5% of total costs. By 1971 wage costs repre- sented only 9.7% of total costs.

Information Canada, which has always been touted as a reputable source of data, affirms our contention — that wage costs are declining in the meat industry. And the special Com- mons committee on food prices

rofits leap 7

obviously doesn’t read its own government statistics. : What of other costs? Agall information Canada shows that while total meat production from 1963 to 1971 was approsh mately the same, costs or packaging, supplies and con —

tainers jumped from $530 million 4

to $735 million.

‘ Another heading ‘‘All Other EX |

penses’’ show increases fro $825 million in 1963 to te incredible figure of $1,090 million in 1971. Isn't it about time that we had a bit of pu” licity from the meat industty with respect to ‘‘all othe’ expenses’ instead of

harangue about increasing wage |

costs? ed Nor can high prices be blam s on the quality of slaughter ite

meat that can be recovered from a carcass has increase@ = more than 92 pounds per thet Ss sand in the years 1961 and 197) | This means that where ac@ : breeder had to raise a thous? head of cattle in 1961, he has® to raise 860 head today to get same amount of edible meal:

And the talk of shortages slaughter livestock 18 tradicted by the meat pack own figures. The Meat es Council reportedin March the cattle and calf inventory risen 4% in 1972. statist Canada reported that theré # 420,000 more slaughter call December 1972 than in De® ber 1971. de

While the foregoing has © only with the meat pricey wages, spot checks !” veil areas of the food industry ¥ i the same discrepancies.

For example, a couple of cE ago, during the bakery yer negotiations, asettleme? reached that gave the WO! $10 per month in the first yea ll

Immediately after the sel at) ment, the large bakeries 7 the price of bread tw cen wae | loaf, citing increase costs as the reason. sind

Since each worker, accor as to production outpu ei of responsible for an oulks ted 2,500 loaves, the bakery vpil $50 more per worker pe ati” only had to pay $10 pero shal the wage increase — !€° 50¢ per day. a fa

Clearly itis impossible et ' the record to arrive at any npt conclusion but that tHe taaaamme cedented increase in £00! g fo" a is the result of the ere pro | profit of the monopoly 00" essors and retailers. .