MFL Environment Committee

The Manitoba Federation of Labour sponsors and supports a standing committee to deal with issues relating to the environment that are not covered by activities from the Workplace Safety and Health Committees. This small and dedicated group meets at the Union Center on the third Monday of each month except July and August. The committee promotes outreach to environmental groups and organizations to work on issues of common concern. They have participated in community coalitions as well as campaigns to reduce, reuse and recycle.

In 1993 the following policy was unanimously adopted by the MFL convention and guides the activity of the MFL and it's committee.

Policy Statement on Workers and the Environment

The Manitoba Federation of Labour has long been in the forefront of the struggle for improvements in the quality of life, not only for workers, but for society in general. Since our inception we have been challenging the uneven distribution of power and wealth and putting forth a social democratic agenda that goes hand in hand with the saying, "what we desire for ourselves, we wish for all".

Our concern for the welfare of our members is not limited to their role in the workplace but includes their role as citizens in the Manitoba community and, indeed, as citizens of planet Earth. It is simply logical to recognize that we must work towards not only a safe and healthy workplace but also a safe and healthy environment.

It is not an exaggeration to say that in many ways workers were the first environmentalists. Workplace pollution has been a major concern for the labour movement for over a century while community pollution really didn't become a major issue until the 1960s. Our more than century old battles to protect our members from exposure to poisonous chemicals in their workplaces means that we have been in the forefront of the struggle for a cleaner environment.

The main concept that society has embraced to take on this challenge is that of sustainable development. Unfortunately, this concept has become somewhat similar to religion, that is there are plenty of believers but with very different ideas as to what they believe in. This has created the danger that even the enemies of environmental protection promote themselves as champions of sustainable development. This is why it is important to keep our definition simple and straightforward.

The Canadian Labour Congress in its policy statement on the environment clearly endorses sustainable development "as popularized by the Brundtland Commission". This commission, named after its chairperson Gro Brundtland, Prime Minister of Norway, is formally known as the World Commission on Environment and Development.

It noted that environment is where we live and development is what we do. It defined sustainable development as, "human activity which is compatible with environmentalism". As the CLC policy notes, environmentalism, in turn, means working for an environment which is clean and healthy, parts of which are subject to sustainable development and the remainder (wilderness) preserved free of development of almost any kind.

It follows that all economic activity must be environmentally judged as good or bad according to what extent it does these things. It is not lost on us that, so defined, many of the industries that our members work in are not 'good' in that they are part of the problem that threatens the earth's very survival.

As the CLC statement puts it, "our members will either be painted into a corner as opponents of changes needed to save the planet, or be required to sacrifice their jobs in the struggle for a cleaner environment." The reality is that we are not, and never have been, the former and we will not, and do not have to, accept the latter.

This policy will provide some specific suggestions as to what elements are necessary to obtain sustainable development. It will weave in our belief that a reversal of the environmental destruction of the earth requires an overhaul of the predominant mind set that economic progress equals the maximization of growth.

In fact, the evidence now points to the inability of the biosphere to sustain even our current level of economic activity, never mind the levels envisioned by those who insist on the need for unbridled expansion of that growth. Certainly this is not to suggest that growth is inherently bad, but, to quote the same Ms Brundtland in a speech made in 1992 to the International Federation of Free Trade Unions, we can no longer continue with "growth based on traditional concepts - not everything can be allowed to grow - the content of growth must be changed". In other words we cannot have growth based on the use of finite resources.

To accomplish this transition to a more positive model of growth we need to move from a society that is oriented to satisfying the artificial wants of a few to one that is committed to satisfying the basic needs of all. Or, again in the words of the CLC policy statement, "activities are sustainable when resources are used in quantities that are not grossly at odds with what the rest of the world is entitled to enjoy."

Not so coincidentally, the experience and the ideals of the labour movement are very much in tune with this emerging understanding of what is required to obtain sustainable development. As stated at the outset, we are rooted in such beliefs as wanting for all what we desire for ourselves and considering an injury to one to be an injury to all. So we must narrow the gap between the rich and the poor. This has to mean recognizing that just as jobs vs environment is a false choice so too is the choice between government intervention and the free market - there is, and must be, a role for both.

The market will not, by itself, alleviate poverty, create economic equity or reduce environmental degradation. Likewise, unbridled government intervention such as we have witnessed in the former iron curtain countries, has resulted in appalling environmental disaster. A proper blend, based not on specific ideology but on what works, is the goal of today's labour movement.

Many of our environmental problems mirror the health and safety issues fought for in the workplace and, as the CLC paper notes, "... as trade unionists we understand instinctively the conflicts between the corporate bottom line and the public interest that underlie much of the environmental debate."

After all, worksites are the conduits for the contaminants that pollute the planet - workplace pollution does not stop at the plant gate. Through sewers, smoke stacks and by transportation workplace hazards become environmental hazards. We are determined to strengthen our protection of both the workplace and the global environment.

In order to accomplish this we firmly believe that working people must not only be given a much greater participatory role but greater power to ensure that the changes that are made lead to new opportunities and not a greater loss of security and entitlements. There must be active participation by trade unionists in discussion at the international, national and local levels on environmental issues and measures to address them.

There must also be certain environmental rights specifically for workers. Some of these mirror the rights that workers currently have in terms of workplace health and safety.

1. The Right to Joint Union-Management Environment Committees - These committees would have the same rights, functions and authority as joint health and safety committees. This would include the right to participate in workplace environmental audits as well as the right to participate in framing pollution prevention control plans and a toxic use reduction plan. As is the case with health and safety committees these would complement and not be instead of union committees.
2. Whistle Blower Protection - The right to divulge information to the public, the media or the government concerning pollution, excessive energy use or waste of natural resources should be entrenched in law. This right would be exercised only after internal efforts to resolve the problem have failed. This same Act or regulation would provide for full legal protection and effective redress if an employer takes sanctions. We may experience considerable resistance from the employer on this one as it flouts the traditionally sacred right to manage and the supposed duty of loyalty to the employer but we can be confident that the community would not support such rights and duties permitting environmental law breaking.
3. The Legal Right to Refuse to Pollute - At the very least this should mean the ability to allow work stoppage when the worker has reason to believe that the pollution is illegal, reckless, deliberate or in excess of the norm for the enterprise.
4. The Right to Environmental Information - Obviously, the ability to carry out the first three rights is dependent on full knowledge about the nature and extent of pollution. This right can only be effective if there are laws requiring the testing and measurement of emissions and effluent. A new category of environmental protection information relating to the safe use and disposal of the product can be added to the WHMIS MSD sheet. Just as workers are now entitled to know the toxicity of the products they work with they should be entitled to know the eco-toxicity of the product.

These rights alone are only part of what is required for workers to make sustainable development succeed. Other requirements would include, but not be limited to:

1. Protection for the victims of environmental change. Social safety nets must be in place to catch workers economically and to retrain those who have been displaced from ecologically unsustainable employment. This would include recognizing full compensation in all government grant and regulatory programs dealing with environmental questions, as well as a special workers' environmental defence fund to compensate workers for adjustment costs resulting from environmental enhancement and environmental protection regulations. This would explicitly require that workers whose jobs are adversely affected through compliance with those regulations be fully compensated by the employer as part of the compliance requirement. The importance of these mechanisms cannot be overstated as without them workers will be unable to support the conversion to a sustainable economy.
2. Government subsidies to economic sectors that result in wasteful use of natural resources should be eliminated.
3. Tax structures and production expenses should be in place that reflect the full cost of resource and environmental use.
4. Tough environmental standards accompanied by tougher penalties including criminal penalties for those whose actions degrade the environment.
5. Energy conservation, in other words producing the same levels of energy services with considerably less than the current energy supply. For example, the report "A Brighter Future: Energy Efficiency and Jobs in Manitoba" prepared for the United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners, Local 343 is an excellent document on how energy conservation can enhance the job market for our members.
6. We should embrace the zero emission philosophy, in which all technical means are employed to reduce toxic emissions to zero. While some have maintained that absolute zero is not technically possible and therefore not a reasonable goal we see this as just a smokescreen for continued unabated pollution. There may indeed be areas where zero emission will never be possible but, just as we have taken the position of zero exposure to carcinogens in the workplace, we can only ensure continuous progress if we retain zero emission as our goal.
7. An economic strategy that focuses on the development of clean industrial high tech industries that reduce environmental pressures.
8. A charter on environmental rights and obligations of individuals, groups and organizations which includes protection for workers who refuse to obey employers' orders to pollute and/or "blow the whistle" on employers who violate environmental regulations.
9. Meaningful consultation with the public, labour included, on all relevant legislation.
10. We must give priority to waste reduction, over-recycling and reusing. While the latter two are important elements what we need first and foremost is to reduce the amount of needless waste and junk produced.
11. We must adopt a transportation policy that leads to significant reductions in the energy level use of all modes of transportation.

If sustainable development is to be more than just a perceptual fog or, worse still, a device to promote a free market/global free trade agenda, then it must include the foregoing elements. As expressed earlier, these elements present a fundamental challenge to the free enterprise business ethic that has dominated the modern day politics of western industrialized nations. It is this fact that should make our ability to embrace the environmental agenda a relatively easy one.

This agenda meshes with ours, in fact is ours, because it flies in the face of the current emphasis on competition, exploitation of comparative advantage, and deregulation as the means to stimulate world economic growth. When the so-called invisible hand of the marketplace is choking us, surely it is time for intelligent people to take another tack.

If we as a society refuse to alter our values and attitudes and to move away from unlimited capitalism our destruction seems assured. The Manitoba Federation of Labour will work with everyone who recognizes the need for this fundamental shift towards a common future "where the environment is observed and restored and workers are not made the victims of initiatives that are designed to meet this objective."

Yes, we need to change our personal lifestyles. But of far greater importance is the need to force a change in the corporate lifestyle. Historically, we have seen in the health and safety field the same emphasis on individual actions (the "careless worker") in order to mask who is really responsible for the workplace environment. Many labour organizations have noted in their statements on the environment how the drive for greed and profits has sickened and hurt the world as it has done to the bodies of so many workers. We reject this insidious job blackmail and insist that workers have the right to economic security and a healthy environment.

An ancient Chinese proverb has been resurrected by a number of people to emphasize the need for serious change in order to address the environmental problem we face. It is, "if you don't change the direction you are going, you will probably end up where you're headed."

We are now at the maddening stage of knowing that the direction we are headed in is towards the edge of a precipice and yet we are not quickly enough taking the necessary actions to halt that march or at least change its direction. If we take a mental look over the edge of that precipice we see an apocalyptic vision of environmental deterioration and social disintegration feeding on each other.

The question is how to move from token environmentalism, i.e. environmentalism that gives people the impression of involvement, towards real participation by way of taking a leading role in rerouting our lemming-like march. We believe an effective method of ensuring that rerouting is through an action plan based on the foregoing proposals.

That action plan would include:

• Educating local union membership on the issues of the environment and conveying the message that the environment is a workers' issue.
• Having union offices develop a framework that allows for and encourages environmental change. By ensuring we are more environmentally responsible in our own activities, we lead by example and encourage the same for our membership.
• Building coalitions with environmental organizations to bring down the barriers which currently exist.
• Forming environment committees in our unions to take the issue beyond the workplace and to educate our members at the same time.
• Approaching employers about forming a joint environment committee in the workplace and making that a demand in bargaining.
• Lobbying government for the strict enforcement of current environmental legislation and regulations and exacting stronger legislation with increased fines and imprisonment for corporate executives who violate the laws, as well as environmental layoff provisions.
• Whistle blower protection and right to refuse to pollute provisions in the collective agreement.

If all of us work toward implementing this action agenda we will be instrumental in changing the direction we are heading in and ensuring a healthy future for our families and future generations.