mei nev A

MORRIS PRESENTS ‘BLUEPRINT’ TO FORUM

Unions counter employers’

By HAL GRIFFIN

Last ‘spring from the floor of Vancouver Labor Council
left-wing delegates argued for establishment of wage coordina-
tion committees as a means of uniting the trade union move-
ment to win its demands in face of a concerted employer attack
against its rights and wage standards. But the policy they ad-
vocated was not put into effect.

Last weekend, at a special
forum organized by Vancou-
ver Labor Council, it was Joe
Morris, IWA district president
and vice-president of the Can-
adian Labor Congress and B.C.
Federation of Labor, who
called for “closer unification of
the entire trade union move-
ment” in order to counter the
employer attack and defeat
threatened anti-labor legisla-
tion.

“We must present. closed
ranks to the new united front
now deveeloped by the em-
ployers,” Morris told the more
than 200 delegates attending
the special forum at South
Burnaby High School in the
course of presenting a 42-
page document entitled “La-
bor’s Crisis.”

In the six-month interval
between voicing of the de-
mands for coordinated action
and presentation by Morris of
labor’s plan for such action,
many unions in this province
have been forced to fight bit-
ter strike struggles as individ-
ual units of the labor move-
ment. :

Where the leadership of
those unions, notably the long-
shoremen, seamen and plumb-
ers, mobilized their member-
ship to stand firmly by their
demands, despite the skilfully
directed and lavishly financed
employer campaign designed
to inflame public opinion
against them, they made sub-
stantial gains. Where the
leadership capitulated before
that propoganda campaign
and failed -to rally the
membership behind just de-
mands, no gains were made.

This is the essential back-
ground to the “blueprint” for
a concerted labor counter-cam-
paign presented by Morris.
The lessons that thousands of
trade unionists have learned
on the picket lines this year
are a vital part of “An Analy-
sis of Grave Problems Facing
Trade Unions,” as Morris sub-
titled his plan.

Morris himself, although not
the delegates in panel discus-
sion, evaded this question by
saying:

“Tt would be a sheer waste
of time to attempt any ap-
praisal of the strikes which
developed in B.C. during the
past year. We must start with
the assumption that each un-

ion had good and _ sufficient
reasons for taking strike -ac-
tions We must believe that
each union considered the re-
sults justified its action. The
terms of settlement in each
instance were strictly a mat-
ter for the members. of the
union concerned. We must
always remember that only
the union concerned knows all
the facts and can estimate the
results properly.”

In his appraisal of the threat
to the trade unions,, under the
heading, “The Nature of-the
Employers’ Attack,” Morris
made out *a well-documented
and convincing case.

He charged that prepara-
tions for the attack were made
in 1956 and 1957,.and the cam-
paign got well under way this
year. “Its full force will likely
be felt in 1959, during the
spring session of the legisla-
ture, and throughout the fol-
lowing negotiating periods,”
he warned.

The attack, he continued,
was not a haphazard affair.
“What has happened could
not have happened as it did
without prior consultation be-
tween the employers in all
principal industries, which led
to a plan for concerted action

a consistent afiti-union
purpose, with a pattern that
has now become easily recog-
nizable.”

Evidencing their demand to

“hold the line” on wages,
well-entrenched corporations
adopted provocative tactics,

sometimes attempting to in-
volve unions in long and costly
strikes, sometimes: attempting
to divide them on the issue of
strike action.

Lockouts were freely resort-
ed to and injunctions, obtained
through “favorably inclined”

courts, were obtained at every .

opportunity. Workers were in-
timidated, both directly and
indirectly through finance
companies.

Noting that unemployment

. was being used as a weapon
against the trade union move-

ment as it was in the Thirties,
Morris said:

“The employers’ attitude to-
ward the unemployment crisis
experienced last winter and
now looming on the horizon
again has been such as to build
a fear complex in the minds of
workers, especially those who

have been reduced to a sub-
sistance level of living.

“Unquestionably the crea-
tion of a pool of surplus labor,
as a result of economic policies
endorsed by the employers,
has been viciously exploited’ to
hamper trade unions and to
exert downward pressure on
wages.”

In making this and similar
statements on unemployment,
Morris: ignored two facts of
considerable importance to the
labor movement.

He failed to point out that
the employers have not as yet
been able to exploit the unem-
ployed as they would like —
in scabbing and strikebreak-
ing on a large scale. And he
failed to indicate the necessity
of the unions moving quickly
and vigorously to organize the
unemployed, both to win their
demands and to prevent their
being exploited by the em-
ployers’ in
schemes.

The most>dangerous feature
of the employers’ campaign,
Morris said, was the extent to
which public opinion had been
prejudiced against unions and

this prejudice “channeled
into avenues of pressure on
governments.”

“Tt should be noted that in
British Columbia during the
past year trade unions have
experienced an. unprecedented
degree of government inter-
vention in strike situations or
threatening _striké situations.
We recall events in connec-
tion with_strike on, the CPR
Ferries, where compulsory
arbitration was threatened, and
the Black Ball Ferries, where
the Civil Defense Act was in-
voked,” he said.

In his five-point summary
of the effect of the employers’
campaign, Morris made the
questionable assertion that it
had “secured sufficient public
support for government inter-
vention, government penalties
on trade unions on strike and

government action to outlaw.

strikes.”

It was this estimation of the

success of the employers’ cam-
paign that persuaded Morris
and the IWA leadership to sign
a contract without any wage
increase. But it can only be re-
garded as a demonstrable fact
if labor fails to carry through
its own united campaign to
rally the majority of working
people to a progressive cause.
In his conclusion, however,
Morris’ warning was sound:
“The stage is set for such
legislation at the next session
of the legislature. If. unions

union -. busting

are deprived of the right to
negotiate union shop condi-
tions, as well as the right to
strike, our unions will be
forced to forego gains of any
proportions, or to take illegal
strike action and be subjected
to the risk of extremely heavy
peenalties involved.”

As the formal organizations
through which the employers
promote their policies and
propaganda Morris named the
Canadian Chamber of Com-
merce, Canadian Manufactur-
ers’ Association, Canadian Bar
Association, industrial associa-
tions, boards of trade and
service clubs. All these, he
noted, “are closely associated
with and borrow heavily from
their counterparts in the
United States.”

Tracing their — connections
with government, the press
and radio and television sta-
tions and the methods through
which they exert their influ-
ence, Morris declared that all
these organizations were now
working for legislation to re-
strict labor’s rights and “a
Canadian adaptation of the

American ‘right to work’
laws.”

To counter the employers’
concerted offensive which

*threatened to strip labor of its
hard-won rights, Morris gave
12 “indispensable* require-
ments” for unions in bargain-
ing relations.

Observing that the employ-
ers: “gave us a blueprint of
their planned attack on our
interests in. the legislative
field” at the recent provincial
management-labor conference
from which labor withdrew in
protest, Morris offered a five-
point program’ of “major fea-
tures that must be included
by labor in its blueprint of an
offensive in depth.” These
were:

1—Closer unification of the
entire trade union movement
for this definite purpose.

2—Development of an im-
proved public relations policy.

3—Improvement of trade
union educational programs.
_ 4—Integration of trade un-
ion plans with those of com-
munity programs. re

5—Development of a plan
for direct political action.

It was in drawing the posi-
tive conclusions from his ap-
peal for trade union unity and
applying them to his call for
political action that the great-
est contradiction in Morris’
report appeared.

He urged all trade unions

‘held that the “chief threat

October 10, 1958 — PACIFIC TRIBUN.

to “present closed ranks,
“drop ancient grieV
against one another”
“abandon _ considerations
self-interest.” Yet, although

the trade union movement 1
the present time is on the. |%
tical field,” his appeal for el i
tical action was not COUR”

in these same terms. cy

In speaking of the necessit “
of taking political) ay ‘
which will “give us allies am
the farmers and profess! ere |S
groups” and of forging “4 wa
ers’ political, weapon,” he i
lowed the broad outline © :
Canadian Labor Congress ¥

; , j ent
tical action resolution. He ™

1"
| ty
and | ty
i
ty

tioned the CCF only ont€®,
then inaccurately, as peiné ing |
only political party opp i
anti-union legislation, igno™ |"
the LPP. p. ols
But his remarks were |
biguous. What he, as 2 tne
wing leader openly suPP®-
the policy of narrowiNé
tical action to support :
CCF, left to be inferredi”
right-wingers in the P0?
action panel said outrighh
cipitating heated debate

But the conclusions 7.0) ii
If the trade unions must’ yor 8
don considerations of sé it
terest to win their figh® oof
no less important for ti? «it!
and -others to abando® ts!
considerations of self-int
Only if labor leads in the oi
for this broader concePt 9 ©,
tical action can it serv® the

.terests of all working: ct

forge an_ effective po R
weapon and ensure #8 jj,
victory. 2 is

British
Columbia:

The People’)
Early Story

hy Harold Griffis |

PEOPLE'S CO-0F |
BOOKSTORE «||
307 West Pende!
TRIBUNE
PUBLISHING,
COMPANY Et? g
Rm. 6 - 426 Move”
Vancouver, B “(
$] Paver $9 50

cover

pit