. AC'. .4-WFDNESDfAV JLY 25. 1984. WHITBY FREE PRESS whitb Volce of County Town y [Published every Wednesday - -By M.B.M. PUBLISHING and Photography Inc. Phone 668-6111 The Free Press Building, Michael Ian Burgess, Publisher - Managlng Editor *131 Brock Street North, MarnP.O. Box 206, Whitby, Ont. The only Whitby newspaper Independently owned and operated by Whitby residents for Whitby residents. MICHAEL J. KNELL Community Editor CONWAY DOBBS Advertising Manager Second Clais Mai Registration No.5351 Not to the membership of the U.A.W. Profits belong to the shareholders We watched with interest the beginning of this year's round of bargaining between the United Auto Workers and the two larges car manufac- turers recently. It seems to us that the U.A.W. is out for blood while General Motors and Ford are out to protect themselves against another recession at the ex- pense of their employees. However, there was one statement made by the U.A.W. at the beginning of the negotiations that disturbed us. Bob White, the international direc- tor, rubbed his hands with glee and said that he is prepared to bring the corporations to their knees In a effort to get his members their share of the companies' profits. He pointed out that General Motors earned $803 million in profit last year but failed to mention that it had been G.M.'s most We ail know back-slappers, arm-throwers, shoulder- grabbers, and two-handed handshake artists, but by and large, the males of North America are not what you might call a touchy-feely society. Most of the males 1 know are nervous even about bear-hugs from oher men, and except for the Canadian men of recent Euro- pean or Middle-Eastern extraction, kissing other men is absolutely out. For some of us, the thought of kiss- ing or being kissed by Yasser Arafat, for example, is enough to unsettle the stomach. And 1 hasten to add that this has nothing to do with Mr. Arafat's cause, his pol 'itics, or his ethnic background. It's just that most of the men 1 know are horrified by the thought of ac- tually putting their lips to anyone who isn't soft, who doesn't smell good, and who isn't a woman to her fingertips. What brings all of this on, of course, is the recent picture in the newspapers of Prince Charles planting a kiss on the cheek of his youngest brother, Prince Ed- ward. The Fleet Street press had a field day with it. The Daily Mail, for example, positively erupted. "The French do it, the Greeks do it, Argentinians and Sikhs do it, even Russians in the streets do it. "But the Mail con- cluded, somewhat lamely, losing the cadence, "The Pritish cannot bring themselves to do it. . .until yester- day, when the Royals did it." The Daily Express, suggesting that the incident might launch a new fashion among British men, commented: "ln other times in Britain, a kiss between men has been quite the done thing. But then, of course, men -- and people in general - were so much more innocent of the homosexual overtones that have complicated the manly kiss for us in this century." 1 don't know about the U.K., but 1 don't think it is simply homosexual overtones which make the manly kiss taboo in North America. For the young male, it is part of the ritual of growing up. Most fathers kiss their chlde in8disrmntly aea wl sfmae ni the boy objcts Atartanundfialepinao Weying nowe anewstlpers armttroersf, oIde wilaingrto bet twhae hadshinke arfsomthin butse ahnd lrehe mesd orth E a arot whate you smenen elsept frobabeyDanada thePrncs of centEu, is aduy ife. Frsentmned.f uhs, thahot o kis.s-n' behiev th h's aoshssy.torinceithilip woufat's casand forlit.co i tncbakrud tsjs that.. ost profitable year in the last five, during most of which G.M. had earned a loss due to the recession. White is behaving as though the people who make up the U.A.W. are shareholders in G.M. while as individuals they may own a few shares, they are not the rnajority of G.M.'s shareholders. It seems to us that White is having a hard time distinguishing between owners and employees. Owners are those people who take some of their own hard earned money and invest it either through the purchase of shares in an established company or by setting up their own business. These people take a risk, they chance losing everything they own in the name of creating greater economic prosperity for themselves and their familles. These people do not get raises, or have a union to represent them. These people earn their living when they get a return on their invest- ment or, to use that dirty word, rnake a profit. When times are bad, these people not only work for nothing but lose money also. in fact, sometirnes they lose more than that, they lose everything they have. Now, we have White and the U.A.W. saying that they are entitled to a portion of the shareholders' return on investment. They say, in effect, that the concessions they made to the automakers a couple of years ago are tantamount to the pur- chase of shares and the infusion of equity into the company. Balderdash. The U.A.W. had to accept those concessions or be faced with massive lay-offs and perhaps even permanent unemployment for a great number of their members. We would also like to point out that every member of the U.A.W. is paid and paid well for the work he or she performs at G.M. For doing their job they are compensated and hence they have no claim on the shareholders' return on investment. It is, indeed, possible that the current round of negotitations could prove fruitless and the U.A.W. may be forced to take to the picket lines in sup- port of their position. IF they do that, this newspaper will have no sympathy for them. Fir- stly, the average worker in G.M. already earns $10,000 a year more than the average Canadian. Most Canadians do not have the benefit packages and pension rights that they enjoy. And yet It is these same Canadians who vilI be asked to sup- port them in their actions against G.M. Our country is finally beginning to recover from a recession that hurt us ail badly. While inflation is down, our unemploment rate is not showing any sign of Improvement. In fact, this country will not have a truly healthy economy until the vast majority of these people are back to work. The U.A.W. has a perfect right, and indeed, a moral obligation to seek a fair and just settlement with G.M. on behalf of their members. We are not saying that they should not seek improvements to wages and benefits and other issues such as job security. However, to claim the right to a share in the company's profits as if they were shareholders is foolish. After all, the members of the U.A.W. did not lose out when the company was losing money at the height of the recession. Its members were still paid their salary, still enjoyed their benefits and pension rights. Granted that some were laid off, but most of them enjoyed '.'sub" benefits entitling them to 96 per cent of the ln salary and after that, unemployment insurance. Many of these people are now back to work, so the losses and the in- conveniences they sustained were not per- manent. The U.A.W. members were not asked by the company to give part of their salary back when the loss was earned so why should they be entitled to part of the profit when the money is finally being made? That money belongs to the shareholders. They took the risks. They put their financial future on the line. The U.A.W. did none of these things. The profit belongs to the shareholders not adequately compensated employees. a