2 Point of .;
tho. View
ify big by

f ecisige® basic thing is that management still makes all the
» This gets to profits. I just den’t subscribe to the
that there is public ownership of stocks. Where

( But it is OCs of Stock lie I don’t know, I haven’t researched it.

( Just
i

Ay Pesidentg

don’t bel

Means Ru
, *Aization eel, director of or-

OF tric, 'On for the United Elec-
| ets ie and Machine Work.
Dr yy eae was answering
Schoo) ie cttlaufer, dean of the
| tion, j Usiness Administra-
Neeently pene! discussion at the
Universi lalogue ’67 at the
* ton estern Ontario
‘a

a) © dea:
Donita .. had put forward the
of Steement as an ex-
Omation W we can deal with
cals Without needing
The Ocial Changes
f 0. :
4 Ment wa Plan is the agree-
| and €€n Dominion Tar
Company and 22
International unions
, ‘Ne compa f
0 pany a free
teat oauce job-killing
‘ in ret Processes at any
fP Manceg ge t® for an employer-
ance Million automation
CcOverin =
ay. g sever
y ction for retraining and
a ent. Hailed by man-
r relati tave new course
ae 10ns, it is still being
and con, as_ this
ren indicates.
tinued: his contribution

Ne of

it ae basic questions is
MW vig ment is struggling,
» and will continue to

to those

the -Mtar ,
He quest} nly flops around
i eart a but doesn’t get at
Ao Needeg .. the problem. What
( tation Sa new type of co-
2 Sully eet Planning, where
the Woreepted as speaking
WF theten thenc’s: If this is not
Doe)! mis Vill just get the fluff,
| aly he ae © roast beef and
} iy the cay Some of the gravy
et co5a | But that’s certain-

" Ra 500d eno S

Mf Parit®t in the we
iz 'icipant he panel these two
titman and Joseph Jeffery,
: © board of Lon-
Ure Urance Compan ;
Ong in, Cotterill, pubic *
ee Of the United
ed the of America, had
ae Views on the
, Bagg tah axon, labor and
ah, had me fy and Dr. Wettlau-
Li, Ut the €n quite sanguine
psc the Pf°Spect of automa-
iy ential, Ormer Seeing it as
the 7 mee 4 continuation
Sttial Revolution and

im the hands of little old widows and orphans. I
1eve that any more than I believe in Santa Claus;
See the amounts that are given on retirement to
Of some of the large corporations.”

the latter feeling that already
through such agreements as
Domtar the ways had been
found to take care of any prob-
lems which might arise.

Both of the labor representa-
tives were. not as assured that
there are no problems looming
ahead although their views do
have points of contrast as well
as similarity.

Murray Cotterill’s main points
were:

“Managers in executive posi-
tions will get their hands on
sufficient capital in the form of
insurance funds, pension funds,
bank accounts, usury, or what-
ever money can be saved by
paying other employees less than
they have earned. The capital
will be invested in automated
equipment. If the investment
turns out to be wise, the new
automated equipment will either
turn out the same amount of
goods or services at a lower cost
or will turn out more and more
goods and services for the same
cost.

“Since such managers, whe-
ther they operate within a free
enterprise or communist form
of industrial society, must mea-
sure their success by the size
of the difference between in-
come and output, automation-
produced savings will neither re-
duce prices or prevent price in-
creases nor will they increase
or prevent cuts in the income
of other employees.

“These benefits will depend
upon the willingness and the
ability of consumers and em-
ployees to force their share out
of any larger spread between
income and outgo produced by
the new equipment.

“If a proper balance is forced,
the result will be that more of
us can enjoy a greater degree of
leisure with a higher lifetime
income or we can make it pos-
sible for others to have a higher
standard of living as well as
ourselves without any decrease
in our present leisure. But, if a
proper balance is not forced, due
to our unwillingness or inabality
to act, we will only create big-
ger booms and bigger busts fast-
er than ever before... :

“I do not believe that we will
stop the introduction. of new
machinery. I am afraid that we
will not expand the use of col-
lective bargaining fast enough

AUTOMATION
AMD LABOR

or use it effectively enough. If
we assume that benefits will re-
sult automatically or flow be-
nignly out of the highly develop-
ed social consciousness of a
university-educated managerial
caste or senior civil service, we
are lost...

“If we are going to make the
full use of sophisticated equip-
ment, one result must be higher
incomes for the employees using
that equipment. This means that,
if we become better than any
one else in the world in any part
of our economy, we must be
prepared to pay higher wages,
salaries and fringe benefits than
those paid in similar industries
anywhere else in the world.

“At this point, we run into
the delightful myth of inevitable
Canadian inferiority which has

been nourished so carefully by .

our protectionist manufacturers
for years and which is aided by
the naive assumption that those
who stay at school for a shorter
period of time should get less
money than those who can stand
being educated for a longer
period of time—a_ thoroughly
sinister combination of poverty,
patriotism and middle-class
snobbery.

“Another mental block is our
negative attitude toward collec-
tive bargaining. Canada, almost

Dialogue “67

alone among those countries

* which have developed collective

bargaining, has traditionally in-
sisted on chaining the process
down with anti-strike rather
than pro-agreement legislation.
As a result collective bargain-
ing is limited in practice to about
one-third of our employees and
limited to a very narrow area
of employer-employee relation-
ships. The very employees who
need income improvement and
income stability the most can-
not get-it through collective bar-
gaining, while those who can
bargain cannot negotiate with
their employers in such essen-
tial areas as prices, investment,
manpower requirements, etc. ...

“Automation is happening.
Automation is a new and ad-
vanced form of mechanization
which can be adapted sanely
and benefit all if we realize
just how we have handled ear-
lier mechanization and if we con-
sciously use the institutions and
procedures we have evolved in
handling earlier mechanization.
It will only be dangerous if we
keep on trusting to luck and
keep on discouraging the pro-
cesses which we have evolved
for making continuous readjust-
ment. Automation is not a prob-
lem that we can’t solve but I
suspect that we won't.”

Ross Russell’s paper put for-
ward the following views:

“Automation will mean fewer
jobs for the same output. To the
worker, this is a matter of great
concern. He’s worried about the
reduction in job opportunities—
the higher educational require-
ments — and numerous other
problems he foresees .. .

“Our young people are not
prepared to accept automation
unless it means a better life. Is
this possible under. capitalism?
Some say yes and some say no
— it remains to be seen.

“I suggest, if capitalism is to
survive this technical revolution
there will have to be deep-going

CHRONIC MYOPIA

: NOPE:.-CANT SEE A THING BELOW WE SECOND LINE ie

social changes. Some changes
that monopoly industry will have
to accept and pay for are: (1)
A secure income not tied as at
present to job security. (2) A
minimum wage above subsist-
ence level. (3) A guaranteéd an-
nual wage. (4) Increased social
security.

“They will also have to be
prepared to supply and pay for
long-range, even life-time edu-
cational opportunities with in-
plant on-the-job training; occu-
pational change qualifying cour-
ses; upgrading in general educa-
tion.

“Possibly one of the most dif-
ficult changes to achieve but one
most necessary is a drastic alter-
ing by most managements of

their concept of proper indus-

trial relations.

“It has been pointed out in
the Freedman Report and else-
where that it is necessary for
management to accept their
responsibilities to workers and
to communities for the impact
of their decisions on technolo-
gical changes; that management
should accept the participation
of unions in planning to mini-
mize damage and _ distribute
benefits resulting from technolo-
gical changes... =

“The American control of
major industry in Canada raises
the political question in addition
to the technical one. It is: how
can we properly plan to take
full advantage of the new auto-
mated methods when we are not
the masters in our own house?

“Technically, the conditions
exist in Canada for a socialist
society. We have large-scale
industry and farms, a concentra-
tion of technology and a forced
productive system that is really
of a socialist type because it
requires widespread cooperation
to make it function.

“While the people of Canada
may not be ready for socializa-
tion, many other aspects of our
way of life seem to lead in that
direction: .~. .

“We stand on the brink of a
revolution. While it holds great
promise of liberating mankind
from the drudgery of repetitive,
dull machine work, it also car-
ries within it the danger of a
far worse fate, of unemployment,
insecurity, etc.

“In this maze of confusion as
to the way ahead for our people,
one thing stands out in my view.
The past has taught the work-
ing people that to the extent
they were militant, prepared to
struggle for improvements and
make sacrifices to achieve gains,
they were successful.

“Big Business and Big Gov-
ernment, as we know them, are
going to have to, have it made
very clear that unless they are
prepared to have an entirely dif-
ferent approach towards work-
ing people and their unions, they,
too, can and probably will be-
come obsolete.

.“The workers will continue to
insist that their talents be fully
utilized in satisfying ways, and
that the goods and services they
create be distributed to the
greatest benefit to all the people.
Technology is forcing society in
this direction. This is the impor-
tant thing—not the label you
put on the resulting complex of
social relations.”

March 23, 1967—PACIFIC TRIBUNE—Page 5