>PEOPLE’S VOICE ON-LINE > >ARTICLES FROM THE COMMUNIST PRESS IN CANADA > >(The selected articles below are from the September 16-30/2000 issue of >People's Voice, Canada's leading communist newspaper. Articles can be >reprinted free if the source is credited. Subscription rates in Canada: >$25/year, or $12 low income rate; for U.S. readers - $25 US per year; other >overseas readers - $25 US or $35 CDN per year. Send to: People's Voice, 706 >Clark Drive, Vancouver, Canada, V5L 3J1.) > >_____________________________________________________________ > >In this Issue: > >1/ EDITORIALS >2/ EMPLOYMENT STANDARDS BILL GUTS WORKERS' RIGHTS IN ONTARIO >3/ B.C. Teachers Fed: FIGHTING FOR TEACHERS AND STUDENTS >4/ SUPERIOR POULTRY STRIKE COULD BE LENGTHY >5/ WOMEN IN THE STRUGGLE >6/ PROTESTS TELL USA: HANDS OFF COLOMBIA! >7/ CHE BRIGADE BRINGS CANADIAN SOLIDARITY TO CUBA > >__________________________________________________________________ > > >1/ EDITORIALS: STATISTICS OR LIES? > >Is Canada really "the greatest place to live in the world," as the Chrétien >Liberals keep telling us? Not for millions of unemployed and poor people. > >It is true that on the average, living standards for Canadian working >people are higher than in many other countries. The reasons are many, >including the successful struggles of past generations of labour activists >and revolutionaries to achieve important basic social benefits. It's also >true, as the late Communist Party of Canada leader, Tim Buck, said during >his 1931 trial, that the wealth of Canada was based on land stolen from the >aboriginal peoples and the labour of immigrant workers. > >Today, the United Nations indexes which put Canada near the top leave out >much of the story. There are more wealthy families than ever in our >country, but as the Canadian Council on Social Development pointed out >recently, there are also 1.3 million more poor households today than 25 >years ago. The most dramatic rise in poverty over the last two decades has >hit families headed by younger people, and by women. After-tax income >inequality is rising sharply, especially since 1994, according to tax data >researched by the Council. > >The decline in unemployment in the last two years is also said to "prove" >that our economy has "never been better." But those figures never come with >the explanation that the definition of unemployment has changed drastically >since the 1980s, so that anyone reporting wage income - even one hour per >week - is now considered "employed." Using the earlier definition would put >the jobless rate up another three to four percent, back into the double digits. > >But even the official figures are revealing. In July, when unemployment was >reported to be 6.6%, that meant that 1,051,000 Canadians were out of work. >Think about it: the economy is "booming," yet more than one million workers >are jobless! > >Even this limited economic recovery may be at risk. The deepest capitalist >crisis of the post-war period was sparked by oil price shocks after the >1973 Mid-East war. And now, crude oil prices have tripled over the last >year. Rising fuel prices, added to other instability factors, such as the >wildly inflated value of most shares in the world's stock markets, could >help end the nearly decade-long boom phase of the present capitalist >economic cycle. When (not if!) the next recession hits, all the phoney >statistics thrown around by the ruling class won't convince workers that >things are just fine. > > >HEALTH CARE BATTLES > >As this issue goes to press on Sept. 11, news reports out of Ottawa >indicate that the federal Liberals are prepared to restore some of the >billions of health care dollars they slashed five years ago. That's the >good news, and much of the credit should go to the coalitions and unions >which have struggled to save Canada's universal Medicare system from ruin >during the era of savage cutbacks. > >The bad news is that the health care system has suffered terrible blows in >recent years, resulting in bed closures, shortages of trained staff, >hospital closures, and shocking waiting lists for operations. To some >extent this crisis has been manufactured by right-wing political and >corporate forces eager to push for privatisation of health care, leaving us >with a gold-plated medical system for the wealthy, and a bare-bones system >for the rest of us. > >Whatever the final outcome of the first ministers meeting which may be >about to strike a deal, the battle to save Medicare and reverse the impact >of the cuts must continue. The call for a people's summit of labour and >other organizations on this crucial issue remains a vital necessity this fall. > >************************ > >2/ EMPLOYMENT STANDARDS BILL GUTS WORKERS' RIGHTS IN ONTARIO > >"Labour In Action" column by Liz Rowley > >THE HARRIS GOVERNMENT has finally unveiled its Bill to amend Ontario's >Employment Standards Act, and boy, they weren't kidding when they said it >would be strong stuff. The Bill effectively eliminates the ceiling when it >comes to hours of work, and the floor when it comes to conditions. If it >passes, Ontario workers face employment standards matching those in the US >Sunbelt. > >Let me summarize, with thanks to the CAW research department for their figures. > >The work week will increase from 48 to 60 hours (the last time Ontario had >a 60 hour week was between 1884 and 1944). Over three weeks, 180 hours of >work can be demanded by employers in whatever configuration suits their >production schedules, and profit margins. For example, a three week >schedule could look like this: 30 hours + 65 hours + 75 hours = 170 hours. > >Overtime pay kicks in only after 132 hours over three weeks. Corporations >would be free to load up the hours during one or two weeks, and cut them on >the third, so that no overtime is payable due to the three week averaging. > >Over two weeks, only 48 consecutive hours of rest are required. This would >make for 12 day work weeks, leading in the direction of the much-hated >continental work weeks and shifts. > >Vacation time could be broken into individual days off. Corporations would >no longer have to replace workers who by law, are entitled a minimum two >weeks annual vacation. Corporations will strong-arm workers to count sick >days as vacation days, and to take their vacation during down times in >production. > >Working a public holiday would no longer require a substitute day off, and >would be "paid off" with a shift premium instead. > >And there's much more. Check out the CAW web site at >www.caw.ca/briefs/rights.html, or other labour web sites. > >"Levelling the playing field for the employers" is aimed to do to the >Canadian trade union movement what corporations in the US did to American >labour during the '80s and '90s. > >By 1995, less than 15% of the US workforce was still organized. Corporate >profits soared, while workers are constantly threatened by unemployment and >overwork, exploitative and oppressive conditions, and falling living >standards. Regrettably, this process was facilitated by the concessions >made by a majority of US trade unions. New struggles and strategies have >since gripped the US labour movement, where the fightback is now growing >along with important successes against the employers. > >Employers here would love to see the organized work force cut in half. They >know that the labour movement is the skeleton of the fightback movement for >social and democratic rights, and they want to cripple that, as well. > >This Bill will take us back to the days before the Rand Formula, which >guaranteed the closed shop and provided the legal framework for the >recognition of trade unions in Canada. It's the Rand Formula that this >government is attacking, though not head-on, since a frontal assault would >spark massive opposition from the labour movement. > >No, the Tories intend to eat away at fundamental labour rights and >standards, like termites, unseen as they do their devastating work. At the >end of their "2 to 10 year plan," there will be nothing left of labour >rights and standards in Canada. > >So far, the response from the Ontario Federation of Labour has been >inadequate. It will take more than education, lobbies, and briefs to stop >this Bill. Mass escalating strikes and protests around the province are >needed to get the employers' attention, and to force the Tories to back off. > >This is the opportunity for Ontario's trade unions to show that they can >mount a real fight to protect workers' rights. It's not an opportunity that >anyone asked for, but it's here. > >With all of the questions that divide the union movement, this fight is >also the place where labour can show its common resolve and its unity in >action, to defeat this Bill and the reactionary forces behind it. > >*************************** > >3/ BCTF: FIGHTING FOR TEACHERS AND STUDENTS > >Highlights of a recent People's Voice interview with David Chudnovsky, >President of the BC Teachers' Federation. > >People's Voice: What are the main issues facing teachers in BC today? > >Chudnovsky: We are preparing for collective bargaining next year. Our >contract is up on June 30, 2001 and it's fair to say that teachers in BC >are quite frustrated with seven or eight years of very, very few gains in >bargaining. So, in two or three areas there needs to be significant >improvement. > >Our formal objective-setting process will culminate in February. My >impression is that the first area is salary. We're hearing from teachers >from all over the province that seven or eight years of virtually no salary >increase is unacceptable. We're falling behind the rate of inflation. >There's a growing teacher shortage in the province, and we're going to have >to see competitive salaries in education, and that's not the case now. > >The second one is a bit more complex, what I would call work-load issues: >too much to do and not enough time to do it. Much more paperwork is >required of teachers than ever before. I was talking to a teacher a few >weeks ago who said, "you know, I used to test my students to help me decide >the best way for them to learn, and now I test them to make sure that their >file is full of paper." > >I talked to another guy a few weeks ago who said "I'm a Special Ed teacher, >so I don't see students in September and June. I just fill out forms." > >There are class composition issues. We have a much more diverse population >in our classes than before. Kids come to us with English as their second, >third or fourth language, and in great numbers. We have many more students >with special needs who are integrated into the regular program, which is >good, but on the other hand, we don't have the resources to do the kind of >work that we would like to do with those kids. > >PV: What are the class sizes you have now? > >Chudnovsky: Class sizes in primary will go to 22 in Grades 1 to 3. They are >23 right now; in Kindergarten, there's no more than 20. So we have made >some gains, in a letter of understanding which disappears at the end of the >year. We have to make sure it doesn't disappear. > >In the intermediate grades, it ranges from 28 to 30 in some places; and in >secondary, 31, 32 or 33 in some places. We have situations where kids are >coming out of class sizes of 22 in Grade 3 and being put in classes of 31 >in intermediate. That's a problem for teachers and for kids. > >The third general issue has to do with the change from local to provincial >bargaining. We have always supported local bargaining. It's important that >teachers and school trustees are able to sit down and solve local problems >at a bargaining table. > >The provincial government imposed provincial bargaining on us in 1994, and >generally, that system hasn't worked. The employers' organization formed >under the legislation is dysfunctional. They have never been able to come >to a provincial agreement with us or CUPE. Even if we had a functional >employer, the notion of trying to negotiate local provisions into a >provincial collective agreement is really problematic. > >For instance, we have teachers in the north for whom an important >bargaining objective is teacher ages. They live in trailers with rats >running around, and they need to be able to negotiate living conditions >that are conducive to young people making their lives in a community and >creating a stable educational situation for kids. > >On the other side, we have classes in Vancouver where 95% of the kids don't >speak English as their first language. We need to able to negotiate >provisions that speak to the needs of those kids and those teachers. You >can't do that at a provincial table, even with the best of intentions on >the part of the employer. > >PV: Do you have a master agreement which is filled out locally? > >Chudnovsky: We have what purports to be two-tier bargaining, but in fact, >all the significant issues are put at the provincial table. The BC Public >School Employers' Association (BCPSEA) and the BCTF have to approve >anything negotiated at the local table. But the local tables negotiate >things like the size of the bulletin board, so it doesn't matter. > >In effect, we have a provincial master agreement which still has all the >leftovers from the local bargaining days. In two rounds of provincial >bargaining, we've only been able to bargain a few tiny provisions. Our one >gain in the last contract was a reduction in class size at the primary >level, and some work-load limits. > >PV: You said this system is dysfunctional. Why is that? Is it about money? > >Chudnovsky: No, it's not so much money, although that's a piece of it. I >think it is partly because of the nature of the locally-based bargaining >that has to happen in education. There is a history and a culture of >locally-based education decisions in the province. > >Every time the BCPSEA has come to the bargaining table with employees - >twice with us and a couple of times with CUPE - they have wanted massive >concessions. I can't speak to their motives, but I do know that they've >brought enormous concessions demands. In each case, the provincial >government has intervened, which has been very frustrating for us. Our >members don't want some backroom negotiations with the provincial >government. They want an employer at a table, that they can have some >impact on. > >Everybody is in agreement that the system doesn't work. So we are lobbying >government to see if we can't come up with some other structures and >processes that would make more sense. > >PV: Would you want to go back to local school board bargaining? > >Chudnovsky: The long-held position of BCTF is to favour local bargaining, >but there are some preconditions for that. First, it would require autonomy >for local school trustees. And second, it would require the ability of >those local school trustees to raise at least some funds through taxation. > >Local school boards have been without taxing powers here for ten years. We >want them to be able to raise supplemental taxation, and we have some ideas >about equity, because an immediate problem is that the tax system is >different in different communities. That's our preferred position. > >But for the first time ever, at the convention of our union last spring, >the delegates told us to look at other possibilities. They were prepared to >say "OK, if we can't get local bargaining maybe there's an intermediate >process that would be better than what we have." We were asked to look at >things like zonal bargaining or genuine two-tier bargaining, and over the >next few months we will be exploring those possibilities. > >PV: What do you see as the future of school boards? > >Chudnovsky: It's problematic! You know, many school trustees asked for >provincial bargaining in BC. We said at the time, "don't you understand >what you're doing here? You are taking a fundamental power and >responsibility of local communities and abrogating it to the provincial level." > >I think they convinced themselves they were getting killed at bargaining, >but it wasn't true. We made some reasonable gains for teachers and kids in >the late '80s and early '90s when we first had full collective bargaining >rights. But the school boards became victims of their own propaganda, and >believed that they somehow they had given away the farm. > >I am still a great believer in the local autonomy of school trustees. >There's a job for them to do in terms of advocacy and mobilization of the >community to defend services. But the role of school boards has diminished >here in BC, together with their penchant for just listening to what senior >administration says, and doing whatever they're told. > >PV: That seems to be an issue across Canada with New Brunswick and now in >Ontario, where they still exist under Bill 74, but just as a shell. > >Chudnovsky: What provincial governments are saying is not completely loony, >I think it's just wrong. Their argument is that they are the ones funding >the system, and so they should be the ones to make the major policy, >curriculum, collective bargaining decisions. Well, there's some logic in >that position. But in the end, our view is that it doesn't appropriately >serve the needs of children and teachers and communities. > >PV: What's the extent of education cutbacks in BC? > >Chudnovsky: There's no doubt we have suffered less than some other >provinces in terms of cutbacks. I articulate it that way purposefully. We >have suffered less. > >The current government in BC has not cut education spending in the way that >it has been cut in most other provinces. They have almost kept up with >inflation, and with growth in the number of students. They've been less >short-sighted than some other governments > >But we have real problems in our system. There have been cutbacks in >special education services across the province - big ones announced just >recently in Surrey, the biggest board in the province. There have been >enormous cutbacks in fine arts programs. > >There is a cap on ESL funding. What they have done is take the same amount >of money and say that after five years of service, kids are no longer >entitled to the basic ESL grant. Theoretically the service is better for >the smaller number of ESL kids in years one to five of their education. But >all the rest of the kids do without ESL services. > >PV: It's three years in Ontario, speaking of right-wing... > >Chudnovsky: Well, there you go. It's a contradictory situation here. We've >made some improvements and it's important that we not ignore them. On the >other hand, there are real consequences for students in the fact if you >correct for inflation and growth, the real dollars available for programs >in schools has been reduced. > >PV: How do you understand this from an NDP government? Many people expect >that they would be advocates for public education. > >Chudnovsky: Well, again, it's contradictory. There are some areas in >programs where they have been advocates. But I think that they have been > _______________________________________________________ KOMINFORM P.O. Box 66 00841 Helsinki - Finland +358-40-7177941, fax +358-9-7591081 e-mail [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.kominf.pp.fi _______________________________________________________ Kominform list for general information. Subscribe/unsubscribe messages to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Anti-Imperialism list for anti-imperialist news. Subscribe/unsubscribe messages: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] _______________________________________________________
