Sands of metal workers march in Stuttgart, West Germany to

%* BF ssn

t employers’ tough stand on wage negotiations. The unions ‘their original wage demand of 11°/) down to 7.9 — but the ‘won't budge from their 6°/) offer and have locked out workers.

teel corporation s profits w as labor force declines

|By DON STEWART

ILTON — With negotia- In the steel industry in coming up in 1972, the

of the Abel forces in WA, which are accommo- themselves to the posi- {the giant steel corpora- fe the USA, who are call- 7 increased productivity less employees, should as a warning to steel- *s in Canada.

'€ is a large market for pening up in the socialist and in the newly-devel- Countries. The attempt by el industry to maintain tend their profits, and still Vantage of this market at nse of the workers in ustry is being supported ident Abel of the USWA. sence of this policy, of 11s that the newly acquir- hnology and automated €s in steel production, of improving the posi- the working class will be 9 increase the profits of 1 barons...

te 1969 steel negotiations, in Hamilton used a varia- this same theme. An in- Settlement was forced the throats of the mem- . after 10 weeks on the line. The company said ley were extended to the Md that any larger packet Cripple the economy. Im- ‘ly following the settle- they were granted the © increase the price of Md virtually wipe out any Ins by the workers. production in Canada ‘om 10 million tons in 9 12,154,000 tons in 1970. Production was 4,801,000 'n 1970 compared with tons in 1969. And Profits were $55,976,000 ) and $31,070,000 in 1969. Means that after taxes, ministration — and ex, —Stelco realized a clear ‘f $2,600 from each of the €mployees in its chain. 70 Stelco had an average of 21,497 employees, €d with 21,792 in 1969. In this drop in employment Tealized a $24,906,000 in- n profits in 1970. ' projection for the future S very clear when in the ‘ment’s own words, in Annual Report of 1970, Y the following: “The hy’s profit margins are Satisfactory and efforts “ase productivity and re- It costs are being inten-

Le spbG .oPovatice

~¢

Obvious that unless the.

workers through their union fight for and win a voice and some say in the institution of automated and technological im- provements and further innova- tions in steel production, more workers will be thrown out on the streets,

Stelco is introducing in its Hil- ton St. works three basic oxy- gen furnaces (BOF). Each of these vessels has a capacity ranging from 180 to 200 tons. Each heat takes an average of 35 minutes.

At an estimated approximation of 14 heats per 8-hour shift, and allowing for one vessel of the three to be in repair, this means a production of 2x 14x 190 tons or 5,320 tons of steel per 8-hour shift. This department will em- ploy about 275 workers.

When this basic oxygen furn- aces department is put into operation early in 1972 the pres- ent #2 open hearth plant will be phased out. It has nine furnaces and employs 930 workers.

These furnaces produce a heat in 64% hours and produce an average of 160 tons per furnace. The nearest figures I could come by, indicate that this department presently produces 2,100 tons of steel per shift.

BOF will have 275 workers producing 5,160 tons of steel in 8 hours. The open hearth meth- od has 930 workers producing 2,100 tons in the same 8-hour period. ;

As with any capitalist enter- prise, Stelco, this large Cana- dian monopoly, does not propose to use this increased productiv- ity for the good of the country or to achieve the wellbeing of its workers. They see it as a means to increase their profits and power. Their projection is to increase their steel tonnage from 414 million tons to six million tons in 1972.

In the annual report Stelco indicates that their competitive position in world markets is en- dangered because of Canadian steel prices. However, they reg- istered their biggest year in ex- ports in 1970. In the upcoming negotiations it would be surpris- ing if Stelco doesn’t advance the spurious proposition that in the interests of national wellbeing steelworkers should be willing to accept small wage increases and agree to increased produc- tivity. ;

What is needed now is a pro- gram worked out by the union leadership which would limit management’s rights, a program which could have as its core the

fight for an immediate shorter ,;work week. |

LABOR SCENE

by Bruce Magnuson

The issue in the Douglas Air- craft strike at Malton, Ontario, was the attempt by the McDon- nell-Douglas Corporation of the USA to impose U.S. President Nixon’s wage freeze on Cana- dian workers. The company also seeks an emasculated contract to weaken the union and to open the door to speed-up, increased productivity and profits at the workers expense.

Two weeks ago, this column called for wide support of Cana- dian labor to beat back this as- sault by a United States cor- poration. At that time the one and only monetary offer this company had made, and which came well within the Nixon Ad- ministration’s guidelines, was turned down by the strikers by a two-to-one majority in a sec- ret ballot taken Nov. 18.

This was a democratic expres- sion of the wishes of the mem- bers of UAW Local 1967. But the decision did not go down well with the officers of the In- ternational Union’s Executive Board in Detroit, and with UAW International President Leonard Woodcock, ‘who goes along with the principle of a wage freeze and, indeed, sits as a member of President Nixon’s Pay Board in the USA.

Mr. Woodcock not only refus- ed to arrange a meeting with the Douglas Corporation following the striking production workers’ rejection of the company’s offer as totally unacceptable, but charged that the Nov. 18 vote by secret ballot was influenced by intimidation. : :

(To keep the record straight, it should be mentioned here that the negotiating committee did not consider the company’s offer to be serious enough to submit it to the membership for a vote, but did so upon the insistence of the International officers in Detroit. The Committee recom- mended rejection of the settle- ment offer and were sustained by the secret vote of the mem- bership. The International of- ficers recommended acceptance and were rebuked by the re- sults.)

The subsequent refusal by the International officials of the UAW to abide by the democra-

US. union chiefs impose Nixon freeze in Canada

tic decision of the members of Local Union 1967, but to pro- ceed to the organization via un- derhanded methods of a “back- to-work” movement, constituted open strikebreaking.

As a direct result of this shameful posture by the Inter- national Union the company nat- urally refused to budge from its original offer here at Malton, whereas in California the par- ent company has since nego- tiated a much higher monetary settlement with its U.S. em- ployees. (For instance, a Grade 6 worker here was offered 39- cent increase for the first year of a three-year contract, includ- ing cost-of-living adjustment al- ready negotiated in the previous contract but not paid. This means that the new monetary offer in Canada for this particu- lar worker is actually a 22-cent increase for the first year, as compared to a 51-cent first year increase ‘to the U.S. worker in California doing the same type of work.)

That is why another member- ship meeting was called again for Dec. 10 of Douglas Aircraft strikers to discuss this informa- tion and decide what to do. At this meeting the local union pre- sident and some members of the local executive were in favor of another secret vote being taken on the original offer, whereas the negotiating com- mittee, with the sole exception of the local president, stood by the original decision.

By a show of hands the major- ity of 3,500 strikers — out of 4,000 — attending the meeting refused to rescind the outcome of the Nov. 18 secret ballot vote on the original offer and to pro- ceed to take another vote on the matter of a return to work based on that offer.

Less than two hours after this meeting the International Exe- cutive Board in Detroit sum- moned the top local officers and bargaining committee to a meet- ing in Detroit the following day, Dec. 11, for the purpose of show- ing cause why the strikers should not return to work.

Explaining the method to be used in forcing the strikers back

to work, Dennis McDermott, Canadian director of the UAW and international vice-president, was reported as having stated that the mechanics of terminat- ing the strike would be to place the local under trusteeship, re- move all the officers and impose an administrator on Local Union 1967. Naturally the International officers would prefer a less open- ly dictatorial way, but undemo- cratic nevertheless.

This kind of completely un- democratic and uncalled for in- terference by the U.S. Interna- tional officers in the affairs of a Canadian local of the union is what the mass media report as “being put on the carpet” for allegedly “blocking a_ secret vote.” In other words, the brazen interference with the democratic right of the Canadian workers to take their own decisions is being presented as the epitome of democratic procedure. Indeed, the whole report of the strikers’

“meeting tends to present the

Strikers in the worst possible light, split and simply the ‘“‘cap- tives” of a handful of “agita- tors” who do not give a damn about democratic procedures as long as they get their way.

What the situation actually shows is the strikers’ determi- nation to get both economic and other vitally important contract improvements. Instead of help- ing in achieving this objective, top officers of the UAW seek to dictate terms of settlement, which constitutes intolerable in- terference in the strike situation. It is made doubly unpalatable inasmuch as it treats the Cana- dian members as some kind of second rate citizens in their own country, subject to control and supervision by union officers across the border in the United States.

The developments in_ this strike have presented Canadian UAW members, without excep- tion, with the choice of either of meekly accepting a secondary role or of standing up and fight- ing for their autonomous rights to handle their own affairs in accordance with true democratic principles and on the basis of their needs here in Canada.

EK YoUSAID #350"

~—