October,
paragraph reads as follows:

wt i

I

oo i IL

In last week’s article on the Cana-
dian Association -of Industrial,
Mechanical and Allied Workers
(CAIMAW) I stated that the union
became a general union in 1969. Ac-
tually, what we know as CAIMAW

~in B.C. began as the Canadian
Union of Electrical Workers and
Merged with the then Winnipeg-
based CAIMAW in 1969, joining
300 members in Alberta and British
Columbia with CAIMAW’s 600
members in Manitoba. Today,
almost two-thirds of the member-

_ Ship is in B.C.
Throughout its history, the left in
the trade union movement, and
‘members of the Communist Party
of Canada in particular, have strug-
gled to advance the unity of the
_ working class and have fought for a
united trade union movement to ex-
press the true interests of Canadian

labor.

The left has pressed for full
autonomy in all unions and for
complete inner union democracy.

_ They fought for these goals because
it was necessary to do so in order to
achieve, in’ the shortest possible

time, an independent, sovereign
and united trade union movement.

Communists have been the most
consistent advocates of this course

_ because they regard the trade un-

ions as a vital force in the struggle

against U.S. domination and for a

truly independent Canada, based
on the real and lasting interests of
the Canadian working class.

As the Communists see it, an in-
dependent, sovereign and. united
trade union movement would great-
_ ly strengthen the possibilities for in-

ternational trade union unity, so
necessary at this time when the
- multinational corporations and the
monopolies are trying to solve their
problems at the expense of working

- people. Also, international labor
unity is urgently needed to advance
the struggle for peace and security
in the interests of the working class
everywhere.

CAIMAW leaders like. Jess Suc-
camore tend to agree with these
ideas in general, but tend to
disagree on specifics. The dif-
ferences arise in choosing the road
that should be followed to arrive at
an independent, sovereign and
— united trade union movement.

- The philosophy of CAIMAW is
spelled out in a special supplement
of their journal for September-
1978. The opening

“When a group of Winnipeg
workers decided in 1964 to split off
from the American Moulders
Union to form CAIMAW, there
was little reason to expect that 14
years later CAIMAW would be a
- healthy, growing union with over
6,000 members in four provinces.”

The difficulties faced by

CAIMAW are described in these

terms: ‘“‘There have been tremen-
dous obstacles against us from the
beginning. Governments and
employers have recognized that in-
_ dependent, democratic Canadian

- unions are a threat to the cozy rela-
tionship they can enjoy with

- business unionism. Add to this the

combined opposition of the
American-dominated Canadian
Labor Congress, many of its
chartered provincial labor organiza-
tions and many well-financed
American unions and you get some
indication of the forces against us.””

That CAIMAW supplement was
designed to leave the impression
that nearly every Canadian local or
district of an American union is rot-
ten to the core because it is guided
by the philosophy of ‘‘business
unionism’’ and collaborates with
the employers against the workers.
CAIMAW on the other hand, is
presented as demonstrating all the
best traditions of democratic and
militant trade unionism for Cana-
dians.

LABOR |
COMMENT

BY JACK PHILLIPS

The supplement leaves the im-
pression that the Steelworkers
Union, not big business, is now the
main enemy. We are told that Steel
was one of the original Congress of
Industrial Organizations (CIO)
which emerged in the 1930’s to
combat conservative craft
unionism, but has become increas-
ingly reactionary in the past three
decades, ~which is no _ startling
revelation. Steel is also accused of
raiding CAIMAW, violating its
picket lines and setting up company
unions to thwart CAIMAW.
However, there is no_ balanced
representation of the progressive
trends in Steel and what they are
fighting for.

Elsewhere in the supplement
there is a chart listing the raids and
counter-raids involving Steel and
CAIMAW. The headline proudly
proclaims ‘‘none who -have left
Steel have ever gone back.”’

This tally records 25 certification
votes won by CAIMAW over Steel,
with an overall total of 2,881 votes
for that union and 1,925 for Steel.
However, it must be noted that
some operations boosted the grand
total by holding two and three votes
within a few years, indicating that
Steel fought to win back units it had
lost to CAIMAW.

While this tally demonstrates a
degree of dissatisfaction with the
policies and services offered by
Steel, it also suggests that the bitter
feud between the two unions if far
from over and could lead to many
more raids for the allegiance of a
relatively small number of workers.

It is my opinion that CAIMAW

will make no major inroads into the
main areas of Steel membership
despite the fact that a number of
units have switched from Steel to
CAIMAW as a result of legitimate
grievances.

Whatever gains CAIMAW will
make in this bitter trench warfare, I
suggest, will not decisively alter the
strategic balance of forces in the
labor movement.

se eee

eee eee ee

eee

ate kb 0 Oe 0S O&O

ee e

Mh es eh a te ee ee

er

ee eee PROVGTICG. . 2. 2 ew we

year $100 2years $180 6 months $6.0
Old OO New +#Foreign 1 year $12 (1)

SAE AR SSE

PACIFIC TRIBUNE— NOVEMBER 30, 1979—Page 12

The CAIMAW Review referred
to earlier reports, ‘‘Canadian
unions like CUPE, CUPW and the
Fishermen’s Union are leading the
fight against the employers and
their allies, while unions like Steel
lag behind.’’ What it fails to point
out is that many branches of unions
referred to as American unions
have also engaged in militant strug-
gles to protect and advance the in-
terests of their membership, and
continue to do so. Neither does
CAIMAW tell us that an ever in-
creasing number of members in
such unions are fighting for an
autonomous trade union movement
in Canada.

CAIMAW automatically equates
Canadian unions with full inner
democracy, as opposed to
bureaucratic American unions, but

_ I could name a good number of

Canadian unions that are less
democratic, in many ways, than
certain Canadian branches and

' districts of American unions. Also,

it is wrong to paint every union in-
side the U.S. with one color.

Some of the headlines from the
CAIMAW Review should help to il-
lustrate this sectarian approach:

e@ ‘‘Business unionists back
police spies.’” (This in connection
with the labor-RCMP liaison com-
mittees, is a complete distortion in
so far as it suggests that no bran-
ches of American unions opposed
the liaison program.)

e@ ‘U.S. unions sabotage Cana-
ian jobs.”

e@ ‘CLC courts the bosses!
(This in relation to tripartism, com-
pletely ignores the fact that the
CLC is much more than certain
right-wing leaders.)

] am not arguing that there is no
element of truth in the articles
under those headings. But it must
be said that every one of the stories
is slanted to prove that purely
Canadian unions are 100 per cent

No absolute in Canadian unionism |

OK while branches of American
unions are almost 100 percent no
good.

The CLC, which represents more
than two-thirds of the organized
workers in Canada, is always
presented in a bad light. Its major
sin, we are told, is that 65 percent of
its members belong to kranches of
American unions. CAIMAW also
argues that two-thirds of the purely
Canadian membership of the CLC
is made up. of public service
employees and if it were not for that
“the CLC would be almost entirely
American union controlled.”’

What is overlooked here. is that
on many issues some spokesmen for
so-called American unions are more
progressive than some spokesmen
for Canadian unions. However, to
be objective, it must be said that the
presence of Canadian unions in the
CLC contributes significantly

towards an increasing degree of in-

dependence and autonomy for the
CLC and all of its affiliates. If they
pulled out of the CLC, it would be a
setback for the achievement of that
objective. é

A study of a number of issues of
the Review convinced me _ that
CAIMAW has adopted many pro-
gressive positions in line with
similar positions adopted by other
unions. But it has also advanced a
number of positions which trade
unionists should not endorse. For

example, one article, while calling -

for an independent foreign policy

for Canada, advances a very reac--

tionary viewpoint in respect to the

Soviet Union: ‘‘The situation in the’

world at present has obliged the
government to reverse its Canadian
military preparedness. The Soviet
Union’s build-up of a military
capacity far beyond its defense
needs, accompanied by its increased
meddling in third world countries,
_-has become a very real threat.”’
While it could be argued that this

guest article does not necessaril}
represent the view of CAIMAW
the fact that it was published ar
never qualified editorially gives |
semi-official standing. The quota
tion above is in direct contradictio
to the sustained and the we
publicized campaign of the So
government for agreement on di
mament and for concerte meas
to improve relations between
countries of the socialist
capitalist worlds. McDermott of th
CLC,..-much® ‘criticized. 4g
CAIMAW, would applaud thi
anti-Soviet position, I am sure.
I submit that in the overall pi
ture, CAIMAW and the CCl
represent a nationalist rather than’
class approach to the labor movi
ment, despite their claim to beif
true internationalists. They give
very distorted picture of the objé
tive conditions that led to the ris
branches of American unions |
Canada and they tend to over eff
phasize the negative aspects of thi
development and to ignore
positive achievements. 4
I would be the first to agree thi
there will be breakaways from i
so-called American unions fro!
time to time that will, in the lor
run, advance the cause @
democratic unionism. Howeve
not every breakaway will contribu!
to that end. To elevate them to t!
level of absolute principle is to ¢
great harm to the trade union moy
ment. A potential situation of th
type should be weighed specificall
to determine whether it is likely |
do a service or a disservice for ti
labor movement as a whole.
As Jess Succamore told me, 1
individual union is bigger than U
labor movement. My comments ¢
CAIMAW and the CCU are offeré
with those words in mind, and wil
the ‘hope that they will promo!
constructive dialogue and debate
respect to perspectives for organl 1
ed labor in Canada. 3

Lower interest rates, adopt
new energy policy, says Fed

A demand that the federal gov-
ernment immediately reduce inter-
est rates for single family dwellings
and launch a large-scale housing
program of 400,000 units annually
for low- and middle-income earners
was unanimously endorsed Friday
by 900 delegates to the B.C. Federa-
tion of Labor convention.

The resolution, which also called
on the Clark government to begin a
“crash program”’ of land assembly
and remove sales taxes on building
materials, was one of a number of
resolutions passed as delegates
wound up the week-long conven-

tion with demands for action on en- -

ergy, housing, workers compensa-
tion and labor legislation.

One key resolution which had
been given some urgency by the im-
pending federal-provincial agree-

‘ment on oil prices, warned that

higher prices would increase unem-
ployment and inflation and de-
manded:

@ That the federal government
adopt a comprehensive energy pol-
Icy;

@ That the policy be based on

public ownership, including pro- ~

cessing and distribution systems,
and include nationalization of exist-
ing companies;

@ That it include a two-price
structure for gas and oil, a uniform
lower domestic price and a higher
one for export;

@ That it restrict exports of gas
and oil until Canada’s needs are
met;

@ That it include an east-west

~+' power grid.
The executive was also instructed

to add to the resolution a demand
to curb exports of crude oil.

Another resolution urged the Ca-
nadian Labor Congress to press
Clark to reverse the Tory policy of
selling PetroCan and instead extend
its role ‘‘into all areas of the oil and
gas industry.”’

Affiliates were urged to patronize
PetroCan-controlled companies —
such as retail outlets of Pacific 66
— ‘‘as long as the company remains
under public ownership and con-
trol.’’

Elsewhere, delegates echoed the
demand, voiced earlier by the Re-
gional Council of the International
Woodworkers of America, for the
resignation of Workers’ Compensa-
tion Board chairman Dr. Adam Lit-
tle.

IWA president Jack Munro told
the convention that .the WCB rec-
ord under Little had gone ‘‘from
bad to deplorable,’’ prompting the
union to present a brief to then la-
bor minister Allan Williams outlin-
ing a growing list of problems.

The union cited a significant de-

cline in the number of inspections —

by WCB inspectors and a similar
decline in penalty assessments. The
result of the WCB policy on preven-
tion, the IWA declared, ‘‘has been
a dramatic increase in the number
of workers being killed or injured in
this province every year.’’

Munro told the convention that

_ the risk of receiving a disabling in-

jury had increased by 22 per cent in
the years between 1976 and 1978
“‘but employer assessments haven’t

hk rs es %3
hea’

gone up,”’ indicating the bias in
tle’s administration.

Although the convention
more quietly than those in
years, as the Kinnaird-MaclIn'
leadership sought to keep
controversial issues off the flo
the existence of two particularly
ter strikes still in progress, couP
with the demand for action over
employment emphasized a milit
mood by the end of the week-l
session.

One issue which sparked con!
versy early in the convention, »
again in the last minutes whe
was brought back to the floor, '
a resolution calling on the F
tion and the CLC to oppose biPé
ite and tripartite committees. —

The resolutions committee
ommended non-concurrence
the resolution but was fore
look at the issue again after a
ral motion was backed by a ™
ity of the delegates.

The committee continue!
recommend non-concurrence
the resolution was brought
the floor late Friday but a
referral motion finally inst!
the executive council to reitera
Federation’s stand in opposit
tripartism, outlined at the 197
vention.

Another’ pontroversiel
calling for ‘‘pro’’ and
microphones at future conve
was defeated. The administ

delegates opposed it as an
sary restriction on debate. _