sisiesettinaaaea abbas i

<i

CANADA —

WINNIPEG — The election of Brian
“Mulroney — the bosses’ friend — just
One year ago was the green light for an
all-out attack on the living standards and
working conditions won by Canadian
working people through years of struggle
and sacrifice. It was also the kickoff of a
co-ordinated attack by monopoly to gut
labor legislation by using the Charter of
Rights in an attempt to win precedence
for “‘individual’’ rights over collective
union rights.

To this end, the union-busting Cana-
dian Imperial Bank of Commerce has
Joined forces with other big business in
Ontario, using the slogan ‘‘freedom of
choice’’. The so-called National ‘‘Citi-
zens’’ Committee — a big business front
— has begun a parallel newspaper cam-
paign which directly attacks the Cana-
dian Labour Congress and what is called
“big unionism’’.

In Manitoba, the challenge to the Rand
Formula comes from Metropolitan
Stores. Besides the demand for an end to
dues check-off, an attack on first con-
tract legislation — which was introduced
by the Pawley government in lieu of
anti-scab legislation — is also part of the
Charter of Rights challenge.

What is becoming increasingly clear is
that big business, in co-operation with
right-wing governments is determined to
use every method and all methods to re-
scind advances made by Canadian work-
€rs Over the past half century.

This assault coincides with the high-
tech revolution which, according to the
Economic Council of Canada, threatens
to permanently displace two million
workers by 1990.

Quandary for Labor

The impact of this multi-pronged at-
tack is somewhat softened in Manitoba
by the presence of the only social demo-
Cratic government in the country. But,
even though workers in Manitoba are not
facing a vicious right-wing provincial
government the need still remains for a
Strong, unified and militant trade union
movement capable of defending ‘the
long-term interests of Manitoba workers.
And herein lies the quandary for Mani-
toba labor as well as the origins of Final
Offer Selection.

In order not to put ‘‘embarrassing”’
demands on the Pawley government the
leadership of the Manitoba Federation of
Labor has backed off its commitment to
anti-scab legislation in favor of the
controversial and downright dangerous
Final Offer Selection (FOS).

At best, Final Offer Selection is a mis-
guided proposal for settling labor dis-
putes that would put decision-making
into the hands of a government-appoint-
€d, so-called independent arbitrator who
will select the final contract. The entire
final proposal of either the union or the
boss would be selected and would then be
binding on both parties.

The effect of FOS would be to reduce

collective bargaining to binding arbitra-
tion, a play usually. emanating from the
boss and against which the labor move-
ment has struggled for decades. Unlike
anti-scab legislation which strengthens
Workers’ position either at the bargaining
table or on the picket line, FOS will have
the effect of weakening the collective
bargaining process and the labor move-
ment itself.
__ Some FOS supporters (most notably
In the government itself) claim that con-
tract proposals from both sides would of
necessity have to be more ‘‘reasonable”’
Since either proposal may be selected by
the arbitrator if FOS is invoked.

Long-term Effect
The problem here is that the labor
movement's definition of what is reason-
able, is and should be, different from the

Ss’s. The boss’s demand in virtually

every contract today for major conces-
sions can hardly be termed “‘reasonable”’
by labor.

On the other hand, have unions in
Manitoba started out making “‘unrea-
sonable’? demands in contract negotia-
tions? Would collective bargaining be
enhanced from labor’s standpoint if con-
cessions were advanced by labor itself in
order to be “‘reasonable’’ and speed up
collective bargaining? Absolutely not,
but in general this is where FOS would
lead.

The long-term effect of FOS would
surely be the lowering of contract ex-
pectations as a whole and in the end
would mean lower wages, deteriorating
working conditions and loss of job se-
curity. FOS advocates also argue that it

is weighted on the workers’ side because
only the labor side can force FOS on the
other. Going down this road disarms the

trade union movement leaving it only-to-

the stroke of a Tory pen to give the em-
ployer the key to the shackling of labor.

It was most likely the thought of FOS
under a Tory or right-wing government
that led labor federation officials in On-
tario, Alberta and B.C. to publicly con-
demn FOS when the proposal first sur-
faced. Based on the rationale that ‘“‘more
and more unions are losing strikes’’ FOS
is being presented as an “‘alternative to
strike action for settling bargaining dis-
putes’’.

Must Have Strategy

Are strikes ‘“‘outmoded’’ as avant-
garde labor relations experts would like

Final Offer Selection — Pandora’s Box

us to believe, or is it that the whole labor
movement has not been drawn into giv-
ing life to the workers’ slogan, ‘‘an injury
to one is an injury to all’’?

FOS can only put a brake on the all-out

. Struggle required by Manitoba labor to

end what, by necessity, must be the next
victory for the working class as a whole
— the shorter work week.

While seemingly opening another op-
tion for collective bargaining FOS would
actually curtail the collective bargaining
process and threaten the right to strike.
The right to strike, always the target of
the boss class, has been won and guarded
by the sacrifice and struggle of countless
thousands of Canadian workers who
have been jailed, fired, deported, black-
listed and sometimes have even given up
their lives in order to win and maintain
free collective bargaining,

In being asked to support Final Offer
Selection rather than pressing ahead for
anti-scab legislation, delegates to the
MFL convention being held this week in
Winnipeg are being presented with a
Pandora’s Box. Let’s hope it remains
unopened.

Pawley takes free trade path

WINNIPEG — In defiance of federal
New Democratic Party policy and con-
trary to the emphatic position of the Can-
adian Labor Congress, the Manitoba
NDP government has joined eight other
provincial governments in calling for a
policy of free trade with the United
States — a policy being pushed by Prime
Minister Mulroney

The Manitoba position had been de-
clared in May of this year at the western
premiers’ conference at Grande Prairie,
Alberta, where the four premiers agreed
on proposals for Canada-U.S. trade and
on a ‘‘common market’’.

Premier Pawley has denied that this
was a blanket endorsation of ‘‘free
trade’’ with the U.S. It was, he said, a
call for ‘‘freer’’ trade, for trade liberal-
ization with due regard to protecting
Canadian sovereignty and Manitoba’s
long-term interests. He also referred to
the Grande Prairie Communique which
states that ‘‘all provinces would fully
participate with the federal government
in all stages of negotiations in order to
identify the opportunities and problems
of a Canada-U.S. common market be-
fore the arrangement is finalized”’.

Whether it’s ‘‘free trade’’, ‘‘freer
trade’’ or ‘“‘common market’’, (and a
common market is even more danger-

ous) the Manitoba NDP government is ©

supporting a policy which puts Cana-
dians on the slippery road to economic
continentalism dictated by, and serving
the interests of, the U.S. military-in-
dustrial complex. This is the goal of the
Mulroney government, tying Canada
closer politically, economically, socially
and foreign policy-wise to U.S. finance
capital — all the while protesting that
Canadian sovereignty is not endangered.

The Pawley government has been un-

able to produce evidence that a common ,

market with the U.S. would benefit Man-
itoba’s economy; all economic indices
point to its being disastrous.
‘‘Non-tariff bariers’’ to trade are
those levers used by governments to as-

sist production and which the potential
trading partner considers gives the other
country or economy an “‘unfair’’ com-
petitive edge. In Canada the U.S. finds a
long list of non-tariff barriers it wants
axed. Given Canada’s higher degree of
government intervention and regulation
of the economy, the kind of non-tariff
barriers the U.S. wants removed will in-
clude marketing boards, regulation of
freight rates, public enterprises, sub-
sidies for regional investment. Many of
these have already been pinpointed by
the U.S. for unfair practices to free trade.

To compete with U.S. industry and
agriculture, marginal Canadian firms
would be pressing for elimination of all
social policy which hampers production
at the lowest cost and the highest profit
possible.

There would be, and already is, mas-
sive pressure to weaken and destroy
labor legislation such as union certi-
fication, minimum wages, environmental
protection, health and safety and plant
closures.

These firms will argue that social
security programs like medicare, more
generous here than any in the U.S., put
Canada at an unfair disadvantage. The
tendencies of these Canadian firms and
of U.S. big business, which is demanding
free trade, will lead to what is called
harmonization, or ‘‘sameness’’. This
means that reactionary right-to-work
legislation, privatization of medical care,
low wages, user fees and regressive labor
laws would all be imported into Canada
under a common market agreement.

The Manitoba economy itself would
not gain any advantage from free trade.
The province’s economy is character-
ized by the predominance of the public
service sector. Natural resources
development, agriculture, transport and
manufacturing make up the rest, with
manufacturing constituting about 12 per
cent of the gross provincial product. Ex-

‘ports contribute 20 per cent to the pro-

vincial economy compared to 30 per cent

Atlantic
Quebec
Ontario
Prairies
British Columbia

Table showing share of manufacturing employment

Local Interregional Foreign
markets exports exports
37 32 31
43 37 20
49 27 24
52 35 13
42 14 44

for the Canadian economy over all. Thus
in Manitoba the domestic market is what
is decisive to the province’s develop-
ment.

‘Arguments for improved access to —
U.S. markets and for specialization by
Manitoba firms within a Canada-U.S.
common market are unrealistic and
naive. Access should be a two-way street
but decisions will be made aby the senior —
shareholder in the market, not by the
junior partner. What future is there for
the Boeing plant in Winnipeg, for exam-
ple, when the U.S. parent company de-
cides it is no longer necessary within a
“‘free and open market’’ which can be
supplied from the U.S.? :

Will there be more opportunities for
Manitoba cattle to be sold in the U.S.
under a common market when North
Dakota farmers are already complaining
that they can’t sell their cattle because of
imports from Manitoba?

Structural imbalances of the economy
will be reinforced not levelled out by free
trade, with little stimulation of new
growth in various sectors of the econ-
omy. The efficient growth will be in al-
ready developed sectors, especially
those controlled by the biggest- con-
glomerates which want to become fully
integrated into the U.S. economy.
Canada would be locked into a back-
ward, lopsided economy.

Premier Pawley appears to have been
sucked in by the claim that free trade will
solve historic regional economic in-
equities for the west. But the evidence
shows the injury to our agricultural and
manufacturing sectors would become
even worse.

It will make it more difficult to expand
the manufacturing sector, to build sec-
ondary industries which can process our
natural resources and provide more jobs,
especially to our young people. In agri-
culture, the desperate need is to break
the grip which the banks and agri-
business have on the rural economy.

But such developments must be
determined and directed by government
with input from the labor movement and
other public bodies representing the
working people. To rely on a policy of
establishing what the NDP governnient
calls a “common market”’ is in essence,
relying on the ‘“‘free’’ market forces
which are controlled by finance capital
dominated by the U.S. military-in-
dustrial complex.

PACIFIC TRIBUNE, SEPTEMBER 11, 1985 e 7