We invite you to contribute short items to this column as a way for other fighting workers around the world to read about and learn from these important struggles. Jot down a few lines about what is happening in your union, at your workplace, or other workplaces in your area, including interesting political discussions. 
 
 
STOCKHOLM, Sweden—Eighty train drivers called in sick October 27 and 28, cutting commuter train traffic by more than half in Stockholm and stopping most long distance trains to Gothenburg and Dalicurlia.

The commuter trains will be taken over by Citypendeln, a private company, January 6. As part of the takeover, the company is renegotiating all of the union contracts and demanding heavy concessions.

Workers interviewed on October 30 and November 10 explained why so many had called in sick. "Because we are security classified personnel we retire at 60 today. Citypendeln wants to raise our retirement age to 65. We will also lose money we have already paid, so our pensions will be lower," said one of the drivers getting off his shift in the evening. "They want to cut our vacation to the 25 days a year stipulated by law. Personally I would lose 10 days. Our contract now gives us extra days depending on how old we are. At 45 we reach the maximum of 35 days a year."

The weekly hours will also increase. Drivers say the current average week of 37.2 hours would rise to 38–40 hours. "All this, of course, for the same wages," the worker noted.

Since the sick-out, the present contract has been extended at least until March. Unless either the company or the unions cancel the contract it will remain valid. "This is all we want, we want our present conditions," one driver explained. "And if the contract is canceled by the company, we won't be under the no-strike clause. That means we can wage a different kind of fight."

It is illegal to strike in Sweden while a signed contract is in effect. Unions who break this "peace clause" can be heavily fined. That is why the drivers resorted to a sick-out in their fight against the proposed new contract, and why none of the drivers wanted to be quoted by name.

"When you consider how hard it is for us to meet and discuss, or go to union meetings, because we work different hours, it was a very effective protest," said one driver. "We drive 250,000 passengers on the commuter trains every day, so a lot of people now know about our situation."

In offering to take over trains and buses, private companies have competed to present the lowest bid, then demanded concessions from workers. Service is also affected.

Some 16,000 bus drivers waged a successful national nine-day strike earlier this year to take back some cuts they had suffered when the buses were privatized in 1993.

The train drivers also protest not being able to mix driving long distance and commuter trains as they do today.

"By January 5 we will have to decide which company to belong to, the state railroad company (SJ) or Citypendeln. Many drivers are considering staying with SJ. If we are laid off, it will be under the better conditions we have now," a driver explained. "They tried to make us decide earlier, but at that time we didn't even know what the new contract would be. So they had to postpone it until January 5, the day before Citypendeln takes over. Citypendeln won't know how many drivers they have until the very day their operations start."  
 

Boston nurses protest working conditions

BOSTON—Some 75 nurses and their supporters picketed the Massachusetts Board of Registration in Nursing (BORN) November 10. Protesters carried signs that demanded, "BORN Must Reopen Charges Filed By Barry Adams" and "Nurse Administrators Have Responsibilities to Patients Too."

On November 11 BORN was to decide whether to pursue a complaint filed by Barry Adams against his former boss. In 1996 Adams was illegally fired for blowing the whistle on deplorable staffing conditions that led to a patient's death and harm to other patients at Youville Health Care of Cambridge.

He filed a complaint of unethical conduct, unprofessional conduct, and patient neglect against his nurse administrator. At that time BORN dismissed the complaint without investigating. In 1998 Adams refiled the complaint.

The picket line was organized by a committee in the Massachusetts Nursing Association (MNA).

"Maryland RNs for Barry Adams" read the sign carried by Gera Urick, a nurse from Union Memorial Hospital in Baltimore. Urick said she and a fellow nurse came to the demonstration because, "If you're isolated you can't make any headway, the company knows that." Nurses at Union Memorial Hospital are not organized in a union.

Members of Service Employees International Union (SEIU) Local 285, which represents some of the health-care workers at Boston Medical Center (BMC), passed out a flyer at the protest asking for help from the nurses of the MNA.

The flyer read, "We are currently engaged in negotiations for a contract at BMC. The Harrison Ave. campus of BMC is experiencing some of the worst staffing in its history, and we are fighting to improve it." The flyer continued, if "we don't reach agreement our strike will commence on Monday, November 22. Please do not accept work at BMC Harrison Ave. during the strike."

Staffing is also an issue at nearby St. Vincent Hospital in Worcester, Massachusetts. Nurses there are trying to negotiate their first contract after winning union recognition in 1997, and have hailed recent protests.

Tina Gilinson, who has been a nurse for 30 years and is a shop steward in the MNA at Brigham and Women's Hospital in Boston, knows the effect of understaffing first hand. She explained while she walked the picket line, "I'm working harder today than I ever have before."

During the protest BORN's attorneys met with Adam's attorneys and notified them that they are postponing action on the case until January 4. They also confirmed that they would consider Adam's entire complaint, not the watered down version altered by BORN's staff and rejected by BORN's complaint committee last September.

Commenting on the decision to postpone, Adams said it means patients "will continue to suffer while the government-appointed Board continues to protect the business interests controlling health care."  
 

Women in Canada win back pay in equity fight

TORONTO – An October 19 Federal Court decision on pay equity has ordered the government of Canada to pay up to Can$3.6 billion (US$2.4 billion) in back wages to 230,000 current and former federal government workers who are members of the Public Service Alliance of Canada (PSAC) union.

Tina Soares, who has worked at the government offices of Transport Canada for 27 years, announced to the press, "I'm ecstatic…We've been waiting for this money forever."

The fight to win pay-equity was launched by PSAC 16 years ago when it filed a complaint with the federal Human Rights Commission stating that workers in the mainly female clerical group were underpaid in comparison to male administration workers. PSAC charged that the federal government was violating the Canadian Human Rights Act, legislation adopted by the federal government in 1978 that makes it illegal to pay women less than men for work of equal value.

Womens' organizations and trade unions demanded the enactment of this legislation, saying that pay equity laws could reverse wage discrimination against women who are segregated into low-paying jobs that require the same amount of skill and responsibility as higher-paying "male jobs."

The PSAC workers who will receive back-pay checks of up to Can$60,000 depending on their length of employment include secretaries, clerks, data processors, librarians, and educational and support staff. Judy Greeley, who has worked for the federal government for 20 years, told the Toronto Star that she remembered men doing the same clerical job as her but being classified by the government as laborers so they earned more money.

The Liberal Party government in Ottawa has used all kinds of legal appeals and stalling tactics to avoid paying the back wages.

On July 29, 1998, the government was stunned by a Canadian Human Rights Tribunal (CHRT) ruling that declared the government owed 200,000 workers, mainly women, 13 years of back pay with interest that totaled Can$5 billion. Ottawa appealed this decision in Federal Court and lost the appeal, which resulted in the final settlement of Can$3.6 billion.

Opposed to pay equity laws, Preston Manning, leader of the right-wing populist Reform Party that is the official opposition in parliament in Ottawa, has called on the government to appeal the federal court decision. Manning has attempted to whip up resentment to the government paying the equity settlement by saying, "It's the good old taxpayer that gets stuck with the bill."

Canada's two national daily newspapers have also weighed into the debate in opposition to pay equity. The National Post ran an editorial headlined, "Repeal Canada's pay equity laws altogether." The Globe and Mail demanded, "Do away with the ludicrous concept of equal pay for work of equal value."

Meanwhile, members of the Communications, Energy and Paperworkers union and the Canadian Telephone Employees' Association have just rejected a Can$59 million pay equity settlement offered by Bell Canada to workers in mostly female jobs, including phone operators and clerical staff. The offer covers 20,000 current and former Bell employees. The union members are fighting for a higher settlement. Hearings before the CHRT to assess their case begin next January.

Catharina Tirsén, a member of the Metalworkers union, and Anita Östling, a member of the Transportworkers union in Stockholm; Ted Leonard, a member of the Union of Needletrades, Industrial and Textile Employees in Boston; and Rosemary Ray in Toronto contributed to this column.  
 
 
Front page (for this issue) | Home | Text-version home