[news] MacPhail savages IWA leader along with usual villains

[ron]

---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Wed, 17 Dec 2003 11:04:01 -0800
From: shniad at sfu.ca

Vancouver Sun	  December 17, 2003

MacPhail savages IWA leader along with usual villains

Vaughn Palmer

Victoria - When the legislature reconvened Tuesday to end the strike in the
coastal forest industry, Opposition leader Joy MacPhail wasted no time
saying who was behind this latest government interference in collective
bargaining.

She pointed the finger at Dave Haggard, national president of IWA Canada.

A surprising choice, given the ties between his union and her political
party.

But Haggard earned MacPhail's scorn for his behind-the-scenes role in urging
the Liberals to end the strike and his public endorsement of legislation
that imposes binding arbitration on his members without a vote.

When the B.C. Liberals claimed the support of the IWA for their Coastal
Forest Industry Dispute Settlement Act, MacPhail interrupted to say that it
was "Haggard," not the union, who'd supported them.

"Yeah, and that's doing a lot for his reputation," she heckled, withering in
her sarcasm. She challenged the Liberals to talk to idled workers for a more
reliable take on the union position.

She went after Haggard again in her own remarks on the bill, heaping scorn
on him for participating in the press conference Sunday where the government
announced it was intervening in the dispute.

There was Premier Gordon Campbell. Flanking him, Duncan Davies, head of the
industry association. Alongside both of them, Haggard from the IWA.

"A nice photo op," she sneered. "A pre-Christmas, pre-vacation photo-op for
the premier. Both of them were standing there saying: 'We want an
agreement.' "

But if the union leader and the industry head really wanted an agreement,
then why hadn't they negotiated one at the bargaining table? MacPhail
demanded.

After all, they were "big boys," they had been down that road many times
before.

Why did they need the government? The bill? The legislature?

"Is there something wrong with their characters that they need the force of
legislation to do what is right and what they have admitted is right and
what they've acknowledged they want, which is to get a collective agreement?


"Or is this some sort of southern U.S. state, where the ward bosses come in
and make decision and then the legislature rubber stamps them? Is that what
we're doing here today? You bet it is."

She wasn't finished excoriating Haggard.

The IWA leader, she went on to say, was likely to get a rough ride from his
members:

"As union members see the onerous nature of this legislation and how much
they are losing. . . they, too, will have questions for their union
leadership."

She figured they'd want to know why a supposed back-to-work law did not
actually provide for them to return to work.

Several employers, as she noted, have already indicated they would not be
restarting operations for weeks, perhaps months.

All the while the arbitration process will be proceeding toward a finishing
date of May 31, as dictated by the legislation.

"By the time many workers are headed back to the job in the spring," she
said, "it will be a matter of mere weeks before the hammer of the binding
arbitration comes down."

She noted how the legislation says arbitrator Don Munroe "must consider the
need for terms and conditions of employment that are consistent with the
economic viability and competitiveness of the coastal forest industry in
both the short and the long term."

Munroe is also obliged to take into account the interests of the employees,
their union and good labour management relations.

But MacPhail, for her part, had no doubt where things were headed. The
reference to economic viability was "exactly what the industry wanted." That
meant concessions for the union.

Worst of all, as she saw it, the legislation denied IWA workers a vote on
whether they wanted to go back to work or submit to binding arbitration.

"God forbid, "she fulminated, "that the thousands of IWA workers who have
worked in this industry for decades should get a say in their future."

The Opposition leader didn't spare the other players, blasting the companies
for intransigence, the Liberals for siding with the employers.

And to put her comments on Haggard into perspective, one should note that
she's already announced her departure from politics and he will probably
retire as well.

Still, there was no denying the significance of her attack.

The wreckage of the coastal forest industry, painful as it is for workers,
companies and communities, has also strained the relationship between the
New Democratic Party and organized labour.

vpalmer at direct.ca



http://www.canada.com/vancouver/vancouversun/columnists/story.asp?id=3265AAF
5-47FA-4EBE-A46D-95E42829225F

Project-X list:
initiated for the (re)building of the Left.