_LABOR

Fightback

message
urgent, say
delegates

Continued from page 1

Georgetti argued that the institute would
Provide a forum for the labor movement to
Put its proposals for job creation forward,
adding that “business is prepared to look at
Our alternatives respectfully.

“That’s how we see industrial relations in
this province changing,” he said.

But delegates challenged that approach
during debate on the council’s resolution.

“There are those in the labor movement
Who say we can sweet-talk the Socreds and
the employers into co-operation,” United
shermen’s delegate John Radosevic told
the meeting. “I say we can’t.

| As longas the Social Credit government
1S in Victoria, we’re going to have to put up
4 fight for workers’ rights,” he said.

At the very least, he said, the labor
Movement should be meeting with com-
munity groups, women’s organizations, the
‘andicapped and others who are likely to be
affected by Social Credit policies and work-
Ng out plans of action.

_ “T hope the B.C.
Fed would see that
'S More important
that the Pacific
Nstitute,” he urged,
dding that the insti-
ute “gives the wrong
Ignal_to employ-
Ts.”

Carpenters dele-
ate Marty Smith
lso noted that the

Otion should have
Ome from the B.C.

Fed. “But I won't
quibble with the
ource,” he said.
| he fact is the
Motion puts the labor
ovement where it
Should be.

thine’, important
Ung is that the affil-
lates and commun-
x 8roups are mobilized when the times
~omes,” he said.

) 1S resolution is the kind of thing that
oi nde union movement should be
Bel ied agreed Hospital Employees Union
Sag Mike Barker. “We need to put the
baer forward that we're ready to fight
Dare A delegate and council president
FY 8 Evans took issue with the resolution,
0 ae that if the “federation is going in
rection and we're. going in another,

RADOSEVIC

SMITH

the tr

Unionists echo deep misgiving
about Fed-business initiative

The B.C. Federation of Labor’s
movement towards labor-business co-
" operation, exemplified by the establish-
ment of the Pacific Institute of Industrial
Policy, is a step towards tripartism and
should never have been taken without a
full convention debate, trade unionists
who oppose the initiative told the Trib-
une this week.

The comments, voiced by several
executive council members as well as one
federation officer who was unable to
attend the meeting at which the institute
was voted upon, indicate a deep-going
skepticism in the labor movement about
the wisdom of the federation leadership’s
initiative. It also underlines the concern
that any continued movement in that
direction could de-mobilize the labor
movement, leaving it vulnerable to
further attacks by both employers and
government.

Jack Nichol, president of the United
Fishermen and Allied Workers Union
and a vice-president of the federation,
was in Ottawa on a fishermen’s lobby to
defend unemployment insurance when
the meeting which endorsed the institute
took place. But had he been there, he
“certainly would have been opposed”, he
said in an interview.

* “This is a substantial change in direc-
tion for the federation to take,” he said,
adding that the initiative “really flies in
the face of positions taken at conventions
over the years against tripartism.

“This should have been debated at the
convention first and not simply put to
the officers and the executive council,”
he emphasized.

B.C. Fed president Ken Georgetti has
argued that the initiative is not “tripar-
tism” but “‘bipartism,” but many union-
ists contend that the distinction is
academic since the government repres-
ents business interests and has, since it
was first elected, framed its policies
according to the business lobby.

“No matter how you cut it — it’s tri-
partism,” declared Carpenters Provin-
cial Council president Bill Zander. “The
government has a say through the Busi-
ness Council and vice versa.” _

Zander was one of five executive
council members who voted against the
initiative when it was put to the executive
council for a vote March 6.

_ Zander emphasized that the labor
movement “can’t have any faith in the
Social Credit government or the Busi-

ness Council.

% *

MACDONALD NICHOL

“They're diametrically opposed to
everything the labor movement stands
for — they’re responsible for unem-
ployment, for cutbacks and the de-
unionization of this province,” he said.
“In fact, we don’t agree on anything,
except that we won’t shoot each other.”

Zander noted that there was nothing
to stop the federation or individual affil-
iates from sitting down with the Business
Council to talk about specific projects,
“but setting up an official institute is
another thing entirely.”

What is most disturbing about the
initiative, he said, is the fact that it comes
“in lieu of any other action by the B.C.
Fed and was put to the executive without
any prior discussion.

“T don’t think that anyone on the cur-
rent executive was elected with a man-
date to take us in this direction,” he
emphasized. “As far as I know there isn’t
a resolution anywhere on the books that
gives us the direction to take this kind of
step.

“This is contrary to the policy of both
the B.C. Fed and the Canadian Labor
Congress as I see it,”

In addition, he said, it will have a
divisive effect in the trade union move-
ment and will leave many unionists con-
fused as to where the labor movement is
going. -

“Trade unionists will see us sitting
down with the same group that tells the
government to pass anti-labor legisla-
tion. How are they going to read that?

“T think a lot of unionists will see that
for just what it is — class collabora-
tion,” he said.

Hospital Employees Union president
Bill MacDonald echoed Zander’s mis-
trust of the Social Credit government,
adding that public sector workers partic-
ularly have good reason to be wary.

MacDonald is also a member of the
federation’s executive council, as is HEU
secretary-business manager Jack Gerow.

MacDonald stressed that the HEU
will support what the federation does but
he emphasized that HEU members
could have no enthusiasm for the Pacific
Institute initiative.

“Given what is probably going to
happen in the legislature over the next
few weeks, we want to see what the
government has in mind before we take a
step like this. At the very least, it’s prema-
ture.”

He also emphasized that the HEU had
no more reason to trust the Business
Council than it does the Socred govern-
ment. “We don’t see that the Business
Council is any supporter of social
services — it simply wants to strip down
those services and provide the rich with
the services that they think they should
have,” he said.

United Transportation Union legisla-
tive director Paul Lawrence, who repres-
ents railway unions on the executive
council, told the Tribune he was
“aghast” when the policy paper estab-
lishing the Pacific Institute was presented
to the executive council — which was
meeting for the first time since its
election — without any preparation.

He said that many of his own
members have deep misgivings about sit-
ting down with the Business Council
considering the role that it has played in
B.C. over the last several years.-And if it
is supposed to be just a strategy, then it
simply isn’t realistic, he added.

“The idea that’s suggested is that we
can sit down with business and make it
appear that we’re co-operating so that
the government will back off on
legislation — and that’s totally unreal,”
he said.

“The Social Credit government is just
an appendage of the corporate sector in
this province — and the only way the
government will back off is if we give
business the concessions it wants.

“As far as I’m concerned, that’s
unacceptable.”

Lawrence also warned that the labor
movement’s new emphasis on its public
image could have devastating effects
within the trade union movement itself.

“The B.C. Fed leadership seems to be
obsessed with its own image — but it’s
losing the image it has traditionally had
among trade unionists.

“They’re not seen to be leading,” he
said, And they’re not seen to be fight-
ing. And I think the time isn’t far off that
we're going to have to fight.”

Vancouver action centre to stay

unions would have to raise some $3,000
each month.

“If we’re going to keep the centre going,
the affiliates are going to have to make a
commitment to provide the funds for a long
time to come,” he said.

Several unions which had been paying
into the B.C. Fed’s fund for the centres in
addition to the Vancouver labor council’s
fund, have already agreed to channel the
money directly to Vancouver.

to a n’thave unity.” He urged the meeting

ex ‘Tit to the B.C. Fed or to the council’s
“cutive boar d.

the Subsequent motion to refer the issue to

defe ©xecutive went down to resounding

at, however.

endg Bates later voted overwhelmingly to
Frank kK, © motion after council secretary
Motion ennedy told the meeting that the

Was in line with B.C. Fed policy as
“T got the convention.

Ihstity ‘eh give a damn about the Pacific

Federation secretary Cliff Andstein said
in a letter that the centres would now
become the responsibility of local labor
councils. He. added that the federation
would be prepared to explore with labor
councils ways to maintain the services pro-
vided by the centres.

The Vancouver and District Labor
Council will be keeping the Vancouver
Unemployed Action Centre open despite a
B.C. Federation of Labor decision — forced
by mounting financial pressure — to close
the centres down throughout the province.

tes to the council voted Mar. 17 to
eet eaie one of the first to be set up
in the province, open with one full-time
co-ordinator and to ask affiliated unions to

_ He also urged unionists “not (to) lose
sight ‘of the fact that government and
employers are responsible for restraint,

it fe _,, It won't work. And we can’t Continue sending donations directly to the The B.C. Fed executive council decided —_ layoffs and high unemployment.”
“Weng sfenbedy added. council on a sustaining basis. March 6 to close the 18 remaining centres
e : os : : ‘ : :
e should, 5 ‘0 do something now — and Council secretary Frank Kennedy told after months of trying to come up with Councils elsewhere in the province are

ab n't have any illusions that the
Or Je. i: ‘ :
ino pe sation that’s coming down is

ing to :
SS ae anything good for the labor

funds necessary to meet $60,000 in monthly
expenses and a $90,000 accumulated deficit
were unsuccessful.

also looking at new arrangements to main-
tain at least some of the services provided by
the centres. |

here was currently enough
Hab ate re open for a further
which affiliated

delegates
money to keep the cent
two months, following

PACIFIC TRIBUNE, MARCH 18, 1987 e 3