The Canadian Labour Congress and Free Trade Unions Throughout the World

MR. JUPP: We are privileged to welcome as our guest speaker today, Mr. Claude Jodoin, who is in every sense of the word a leading Canadian. Born in Westmount, Quebec, in 1913, he took a classical education at Ste Marie College and Jean de Brebeuf College in Montreal. In 1937 he became an organizer for the International Ladies' Garment Workers' Union, became Assistant Manager and later Manager of the Montreal Joint Board of the Dressmakers' Union and by way of the Montreal Trades and Labour Council, rose to the Presidency of the Trades and Labour Congress of Canada in August 1954. When the founding convention of the Canadian Labour Congress took place in Toronto in April 1956 Mr. Jodoin was elected President.

We salute our guest speaker for the keen interest he has always shown in the field of combatting racial intolerance as evidenced by nine years as Chairman of the TLC Standing Committee to combat racial discrimination.

Since 1949 Mr. Jodoin has been a member of the executive board of the International Confederation of Free Trade Unions and since 1950 a member of the Governing Body of the I.L.O.

By way of extra-curricula activities our guest speaker has not been idle. For two periods 1940-42 and 1947-54 he served as a City Councillor in Montreal, and he was a member of the Quebec Legislature for Montreal St. James in 1942-44. He is a member of the national executive of the Canadian Red Cross and of the Catholic Federation of Charities.

I was intrigued by the Geddes Plan recently proposed by Mr. Charles Geddes, a member of the Executive of the Trades Union Congress in Britain. It calls for the Unions to take the lead in counter-attacking inflation by negotiating in future not for wage increases but for price cuts. This is a good enough example to illustrate that under the free enterprise system labour and management are both working for the same objectives and that Union leadership displays statesmanlike qualities and imaginative enterprise.

I should like to mention that Trade Unionism has been a topic for addresses to the Empire Club in the past. Samuel Gompers in 1921 and Walter Reuther in 1956 have graced our meetings. So today I have much pleasure in presenting Mr. Claude Jodoin who will speak to us about "The Canadian Labour Congress and Free Trade Unions Throughout the World" - Mr. Jodoin.

MR. JODOIN: I have been interested to note that your organization has been in existence since 1903. During that time, I know, you have had as your guests a great many outstanding Canadians, as well as many visitors from other countries. Your obvious desire to gain first-hand knowledge of a wide variety of affairs is most commendable; for, only through knowledge can we advance. The invitation which you have so kindly extended to me today is, I take it, evidence of an interest in the Canadian labour movement.

It was well over half a century ago when this Empire Club was formed; but even then, in 1903, organized labour was fairly well established in Canada. Individual unions had first appeared 90 years before, and central labour bodies, providing a means of co-operation between unions, were 30 years old.

The first step toward this type of co-operation was taken here in Toronto by the Toronto Trades and Labor Council. In the Library of our national office in Ottawa is the minute book of that organization covering the period around 1903. Its pages are yellow but its story is still interesting.

The Toronto Trades Council 54 years ago represented a membership of 9,200--now the new merged Toronto and District Labour Council represents 110,000 men and women in the Toronto Metropolitan area. There have been many other changes. In the year 1903 bricklayers in Toronto succeeded in increasing their weekly wages from $18.68 to $19.80; motormen and conductors on the suburban streetcar lines had their wages increased from $8.75 to $10.00.

Of course prices were far lower in those days too; but I don't imagine anyone will dispute the statement that our living standards have increased since 1903-and considerably. I would not suggest that organized labour alone has been responsible for this change; but I do suggest that labour has had a major role.

We are told--and I imagine the bricklayers and motormen and others in 1903 were also told--that wage increases merely lead to higher prices and nothing is gained. The record gives little support to those who hold this view. Labour's efforts to obtain better wages and working conditions has been consistent since 1903--and before--and has met with a good deal of success. Today our living standards are the highest in our country's history, and the second highest in the world.

Again, I am not attempting to take all the credit on labour's behalf--we in Canada are blessed with most unusual natural wealth; we have a young and virile people; we have opportunities which few other people enjoy. At the same time I would suggest that the pressures applied by labour have been instrumental in having us take advantage of these conditions. No management, and no ownership, faced with a continued natural desire by employees to better their conditions, can afford to sleep at the switch. These very desires, expressed through cooperative union methods in a responsible manner can spur many managements to more efficient operations--and have done so.

We are still in the early stages of a new year and it is natural that at such times people ask what the future holds. No one, of course, knows; but opinions can be interesting. As far as labour is concerned there will be this year, and in other years ahead, a continuing desire to strive for a better life for all people. We still have a long way to go, even here in Canada. This is obvious when we look at the figures of the 1951 census showing a housing backlog of 400,000 units with close to another million houses either overcrowded or in need of major repairs.

We still have a great unfilled need in Canada when there are nearly a million homes without any running water; when a million and a half Canadian housewives use a broom instead of a vacuum cleaner. One could go on and on, but I think it's obvious that the need is there; and the fulfillment of the need will give employment to many thousands of people.

This is one of the factors that adds to the brightness of our future. The preliminary report of the Royal Commission on Canada's Economic Future, which we saw just recently, was optimistic. You will recall that Mr. Gordon and his colleagues forecast a 66% increase in Canadian living standards. The commission says that wage rates are going to continue to rise and living standards will rise even more.

Now I know that many of you attending this luncheon today are employers, and it's natural that employers wonder whether or not a new year is going to be one of industrial peace. That, of course, is a matter which we feel does not rest entirely with organized labour. There are two parties to every collective agreement. Then again, conditions differ widely in various industries and places of employment; but I think there are some things that can be said in a general way.

I think, on the whole, we are all learning to settle more and more of our differences across a bargaining table and without work stoppages: This is a trend that is likely to continue as we gain experience, and as unions and management work together and develop mutual confidence. There may be some steps we can take to hasten this process, and I would like to suggest them in a minute; but let me turn immediately to the question of strikes.

I can't overemphasize the fact that we in labour don't like strikes. Those who like them least are the men and women who walk picket lines and suffer the immediate consequences. I don't think management people like strikes either; but the fact is that we do have them and we are likely to have some of them in the future.

There seems to me to be too little realization of the fact that the right to strike is a vital part of our whore democratic system. This position was very well put by a commission appointed by the Governor of New Jersey two or three years ago to investigate the advisability of compulsory arbitration in public utilities. The commission was very strongly opposed to compulsory arbitration and, in the course of its report it dealt with the right to strike. Three specific points were made. Let me give them to you in the commission's own words:

"First, we know that the strike or the threat of a strike is an essential part of negotiations; without it there could hardly be an approach to equality in bargaining power of the kind our law seeks.

"Second, the denial of the right to strike would be incompatible with tradition and would strip the element of voluntarism from the labour agreement which is, after all, the objective of the process of collective bargaining as we understand it. An agreement, by its very meaning, is something voluntarily made by the contracting parties. Under our political and legal philosophy, an agreement may not be imposed by law or government directive. If it is, it is not an agreement of the parties, and it cannot then command their sense of obligation, and consequently has less chance of accomplishing the purpose for which it was designed.

"Third, we have not been able to devise a method of establishing the wage rates and other conditions of employment which is more efficient and at the same time consistent with our basic political thinking. The totalitarian kind of imposition and prohibition is abhorrent to us, and no authoritative voices have been raised to advocate such a course."

Those, as I said, are the commission's own words. I think there is probably general agreement with the commission that free collective bargaining remains the best method we have of arriving at an agreement on wages and working conditions. I certainly have no alternative to suggest; but I do suggest that we might do more constructive thinking than we are doing at present to better relations in the collective bargaining field.

About the time that this commission was making its study in New Jersey another group, under the sponsorship of the National Planning Association, was looking into what they properly described as "The Causes of Industrial Peace".

This is highly important because the fact is that the vast majority of collective agreements are reached by perfectly peaceful means. The record shows that 95% of the agreements negotiated in Canada last year were signed without a strike. It is true that from time to time we are faced with strike situations of considerable seriousness; but it is probably their rarity that attracts so much attention.

Time lost through illness was 25 times that lost through strikes; through unemployment it was 30 times greater. I sometimes think it is unfortunate that those editorial writers who devote so much time and space to giving advice on industrial relations do not use some of their efforts toward a reduction in these two great production robbers--illness and unemployment.

With such a high proportion of negotiations conducted without difficulty it certainly seems that we might profitably devote more attention to studies which would help make us familiar with the kind of conditions that lead to these good employer-employee relations.

The study that I speak of, conducted by the National Planning Association, arrived at some very definite conclusions, based on the experience of 138 companies. It was found that nine conditions lent themselves to industrial peace. Let me read them to you:

1. There is full acceptance by management of the collective bargaining process and of unionism as in institution. The company considers a strong union an asset to management.

2. The union fully accepts private ownership and operation of the industry; it recognizes that the welfare of its members depends upon the successful operation of the business.

3. The union is strong, responsible and democratic.

4. The company stays out of the union's internal affairs; it does not seek to. alienate the workers' allegiance to their union.

5. Mutual trust and confidence exist between the parties. There have been no serious ideological incompatibilities.

6. Neither party to bargaining has adopted a legalistic approach to the solution of problems in the relationship.

7. Negotiations are "problem-centred"--more time is spent on day-today problems than on defining abstract principles.

8. There is widespread union-management consultation and highly developed information-sharing.

9. Grievances are settled promptly, in the local plant whenever possible. There is flexibility and informality within the procedure.

This is not an exhaustive list. It was developed as the result of experience in the United States, and there may be circumstances which in some respects differ in Canada. In any event I do suggest in all earnestness that work in this field might well be undertaken in Canada. I am sure that responsible union people and responsible representatives of management would be glad to co-operate. It is a matter in which the government might well concern itself. Universities might be of great assistance. We all stand to gain if the causes of industrial peace can be made more generally known and applied.

Now may I turn to another matter in which there is a great deal of current interest and, I think, a good deal of misunderstanding about labour's position--I refer to automation. Automation--it's a word our friends of 1903 certainly never heard of; in fact few of us heard of it until comparatively recently. Yet now such expressions as "electronic brains", "closed loop systems", and "automatic feedback controls" are creeping into our everyday language.

It is not surprising that, with a matter so new, there should be a good deal of uncertainty and guess-work. We do know that methods of automation can be used to greatly expand production and to provide us with many goods and services that have not previously been available. We know, too, that unless care is taken, automation can lead to considerable disruption and suffering.

Let me say, immediately, that organized labour is in favour of automation. We feel that the proper use of this new and developing knowledge can do much to fill the needs of the Canadian people, and of people in other countries. The long-term benefits of automation, properly used, can be of great benefit to all.

At the same time, we in the labour movement have a natural concern about some of the short-term problems that automation can bring; and, in fact, has brought. No one is sure just how fast automation will come or how widespread its application will be. Those who have studied the matter seem to be agreed that regardless of these uncertainties, automation will have an effect on jobs. Some jobs will be eliminated, others will be produced.

The glib suggestion that such developments always result, in the long run, in more jobs is, I suggest, merely a method of trying to avoid more immediate and pressing problems. A somewhat thoughtless employer may say to an employee, "We don't need you any more. We're putting in new equipment to do your job. Eventually it will mean more work for everyone."

But what about the worker of 45 years or more who gets a pink slip? Where is he going to turn? There is increasing hesitation to employ people above the 40-mark. Obviously the man who wrote "Life Begins at 40" wasn't talking about finding employment.

Admittedly our knowledge in this field is limited and there is a good deal of speculation. A University of Chicago study of 12 cases--and I point out only 12 cases--showed an average reduction in employment of 63% and average increase in production of 382%. It is the immediate situation of the 63% of these employees that concerns us. It is the time lag between the introduction of automation and its eventual benefits.

Here again, I suggest, there is need for study and consultation; and it has been with this in view that we have been urging the federal government to establish a council, or a committee, or some sort of machinery that would provide for discussion and a gathering of the facts.

We think a great deal of suffering can be avoided--by determining, as far in advance as possible, what changes can be expected, and then seeing what can be done to meet them. Here, as in the field of collective bargaining, there is great need for the exchange of information and for understanding between management and the employees. Without such exchange and understanding it is inevitable that some employees will become needlessly alarmed. It is the human problem that needs our attention. There is a danger that we may be carried away with enthusiasm for new machines and new techniques. Human values must remain paramount.

Automation may be regarded, in a sense, as a sudden speeding up of a process that has been going on for some time. Back in 1903 it was not unusual for people to work a 60-hour week. Now the 40-hour week is fairly generally accepted. In the interval there has been acceptance of more statutory holidays and of longer vacations. People are staying in school longer, and so are entering the labour force at a later age. They are retiring earlier.

And yet, despite all these changes, production is increasing at a much faster rate than employment--the gap between production and employment is constantly widening.

This changing situation--and a situation which I say may change much more rapidly in the future--is a challenging one. It needs the best all of us can give.

Looking toward an automated age from a labour standpoint, we see the need for wages adequate to maintain a good standard of living, so that there may be a market for the great volume of goods and services that we expect will become available. Many unions are paying increasing attention to the seniority clauses of their agreements. It is natural that there will be a desire on the part of employers to re-train younger employees for automated jobs; but such a policy again raises the problem of the older worker. Shorter hours are inevitable.

Pension plans take on new significance and our Congress will continue to urge the adoption of an industrial pension scheme which would enable workers to contribute to a pension plan without sacrificing their mobility. There are too many instances in which an employee, for one reason or another, has to change his employment and so loses the benefits he has accumulated over the years under a limited type pension plan.

These, as I said, are all factors from labour's viewpoint; but we do not suggest by any means that it is enough. We are anxious to co-operate with management and with government in trying to come up with the solution to some of these problems now--rather than waiting until individuals are suffering and the solution is much more difficult.

I'm afraid that, up to now, I may have given the impression that labour's concern is almost entirely with wages and working conditions and is, therefore, rather selfish. This, of course, is not the case.

The concern of the organized labour movement in all progressive forms of social legislation is a matter of historic record. Labour unions here, and in other parts of the world, were in the forefront of the struggle to introduce compulsory education. When a platform of principles was adopted by the Trade and Labor Congress in Winnipeg in 1898, the first item was "free compulsory education". In those days the employment of children at the age of 12 was by no means uncommon. Progress has been made since that time; but we feel there is room for still further progress.

The sort of future I've just spoken about with automation is going to create a tremendous demand for highly skilled people. Already we are well aware of shortages of engineers and technicians. There is a crying need for more teachers. We think, therefore, that the opportunities for higher education should be extended. Every time a boy or girl, with adequate ability, has to cut short his or her education because of financial limitations there is a loss, not only to that individual, but to the country. There is an immediate need for the extension of university facilities and of bursaries, scholarships, or some other form of assistance to students who have academic ability.

If I may use the word "wages" just once more I would say that we were very pleased when the Gordon Commission spoke so emphatically about the urget necessity for improving the income of the members of university faculties. Not only do we need more people to give instruction in these institutions, but we need to attract the best people available. University professors do not genever negotiations they may undertake.

You are probably well aware that a comprehensive plan of national health insurance is a top objective of the Canadian Labour Congress. I spoke a few minutes ago of the time loss through illness--25 times as much as is lost through strikes. This can be measured in dollars as a tremendous loss in production. What can't be measured in dollars is the suffering and the shortened life which results from illness, a great deal of which might be prevented under a really comprehensive plan.

I said that labour's objectives were by no means all selfish. A large proportion of the people who make up the organized labour movement in Canada are already covered by various forms of hospital and medical plans which now form a part of collective agreements. But the majority of Canadians who have the greatest need of this kind of protection are without it. We want to see every Canadian man, woman and child covered by a plan which will assure them medical and hospital attention as automatically as everyone is now entitled to police and fire protection. We think the protection of human health rates in importance above the protection of property. Finally, let me speak for a minute about still broader interests of the Canadian labour movement--our interest in international affairs. I notice that the object of your club is "the advancement of the interests of Canada and the United Commonwealth of Nations".

The structure of the labour movement is not unlike that of the Commonwealth. The labour movement is made up of a number of groups, all of which retain complete autonomy; but which share common principles and objectives. Just as the Canadian Labour Congress is the central body for a large number of unions in Canada, so we also have an international organization--the International Confederation of Free Trade Unions--to which various national organizations belong. This is a voluntary organization of some 60,000,000 workers in 75 different countries.

The word "Free" in the name of this organization is extremely important. These are the labour organizations of the free world. Under a dictatorship there can be no free trade unions. Just as trade unions have played an important part in raising the living standards in Canada, and in many other countries, so we are convinced, trade unions can be a great force toward improving conditions for people in the areas that are generally described as underdeveloped--and it is the people in these countries who may well determine the future course of the world.

These are the people to whom the Soviet dictators are directing attention. The men in the Kremlin look to these areas for further extensions of the Soviet Empire. The extent to which they have already extended the clutches of Soviet colonialism is seldom realized. Since the communists took control in Russia, Red domination has spread over 5,000,000 square miles and 732,000,000 people.

And this has taken place at a time when the western powers, and particularly Great Britain, has been giving independence to peoples who were once under a colonial status. Since 1900 the western nations have given independence to 694,000,000 people in areas that comprise 9,000,000 square miles.

The people of the so-called neutral countries--aligned neither with the West or the Soviet--are, for the greater part, the people of these under-developed countries. They face a choice, and in the light of their circumstances, economic conditions are bound to have a very great effect on the choice they may make.

We, in the Canadian labour movement, are anxious to see their conditions bettered; and that is why we have been continually urging our government to increase Canadian contributions to the Colombo Plan, to the United Nations' Technical Assistance Programme, and to other forms of assistance.

Beyond this we believe we have a contribution to make as trade unionists. Through the International Confederation of Free Trade Unions we are helping these people to build organizations of their own so that they can help themselves. Too many of them suffer from conditions of economic colonialism.

We want to see them choose the democratic way of improving their conditions, and the democratic way means a co-operative effort in free collective bargaining. With this in view many of our organizations, and a good number of individuals, are making regular voluntary contributions to a fund which is used to conduct schools and classes to train trade union leaders. It is a difficult task. The size of the job is enormous. The difficulties are great--language is just one of them.

But, we in the free trade union movement know it is a task we cannot afford to ignore. We believe, most sincerely, that the extension of such democratic principles as free collective bargaining is the greatest hope--the only hope--of maintaining a free world. This means recognition of the sacred nature of the individual. It means recognition of a just method of arriving at the reward a man shall receive for his toil.

The creatures of the Kremlin are glib with their promises. They are masters of the art of propaganda. We must show that our way works. We must prove to these people, many of whom are so badly in need of help, that they can better themselves by democratic methods. This is a responsibility of which we in the Canadian labour movement are very well aware and to which we are devoting a great deal of attention. It is a very different type of problem to that faced by our brothers in 1903; but it is going to determine the kind of life that those who follow us will face in 2003.

THANKS OF THE MEETING were expressed by David J. Roche.