peclteeresreiperter ao ee

Page 4 — Saturélay, por 7 945

UMUVACAUUUDENUAGE RACH AT SON CESSETESTUAEETTOESESAEIT VEYA ASSET EIT EN, (rpetaeeers

PACIFIC ADVOCATE

; Ey SULVSVEOSKACSAUCNESCESCEATECEAEOUAG STEP EUUCLETA TEP A Ty SCOR RAEESTRPATIGTSETED + SITS

PEOPIEES VOIEE FOR PRIGRESS

Published every Saturday by The People Publishing Com-
pany, Room 104, Shelly Ruilding, 119 West Pender Street,
Vancouver, British Columbia and printed at East End.
Printers, 2303 East Hastings Street, Vancouver, British
Columbia. Subscription Rates: One year $2, six months $1.

Editor Associate Editor
Cs Ac SAUNDERS MYER SHARZER

7X Step Forward —

AROLD Winch, CCF opposition leader in the B.C. Leg-

islature, reporting to his constituents on the last session,
reached an all-time high with his calamity howling.

Pollowing a session in which many forward steps were

taken, Winch discounted every move made by the province

and in true CCF style could only see disaster ahead—“‘if capi-
talist governments remain in office.” : ;

Included in his tale of woe was the assertion that the
power bill is a fraud. : :

Well, the CCF MLA’s voted en bloc for the bill—what
does this make Harold Winch and Company?

Meanwhile it is reported that Premier John Hart has.al-

ready taken the first steps toward implementine government
plans with the selection of S. R. Weston, chief engineer of
the Public Utilities Committee, as chairman of the commission.
Weston is a man with wide experience in the field of public
ownership and power development, having been chief engineer
of the New Brunswick Power Commission.
* ‘The recommendations of the Rural Electrification Report
will be followed closely, according to Premier Hart, including
development of potential hydro power on the Nanaimo River
to provide power for the central Vancouver Island locality.

This is no fraud, Harold’ Winch, and the people in rural
areas affected will not regard it as a fraud. :

It is true that the government bill does not bring the main
power monopoly under public ownershp. But Winch is well
aware that it is the municipalities themselves and principally
Vancouver City that is holding up positive moves in this
direction. If Vancouver were to take a lead in a move to take
over the public utilities services of the BCElectric, other muni-
cipalities would follow suit, making action by the province
easy and imperative.

The power bill is not a fraud; it is not the whole leaf but
it is definitely a step in the mght direction. Our job is to
expedite and expand the action—not how] calamity.

This is, however, typical of the work of the CCF opposi-
tion in the house. This was exemplified in their antics follow-
ing the appointment of a Government-Labor committee as a
result of the Labor Lobby.

Despite the fact that this was recognized as a huge step
forward and a definite victory for labor, CCF Trade Union-
ists and MLA’s tried to present it as a defeat for labor.

The truth is of course that these people do not represent
labor’s viewpoint at all; they are entirely divorced from the
realities of the people’s needs and aspirations. They view.
everything from the narrow angle of CCF partisan advantage.

Compare their abortive calamity howling with the work
of the two Labor-Progressive MPP’s in the Ontario Legisla-
ture. It is undoubtedly a fact that these two members of the
Legislature carried more weight than the 32 CCF members who
finally voted with the progressive section to oust the Tory
Drew administration. :

* The fight was carried by these members and it was a suc-
cessful fight because it represented the wishes and desires of
the majority of the people of Ontario. Almost every trade
union in the province rallied behind the campaign led by these
Labor-Progressive MPP’s. The fight was successful in oust-
ing the Drew government—when the CCF cooperated to the
extent of voting with the progressive majority when the pres-
sure was too great to be ignored.

Whether they will see the writing on the wall plainly
enough to take the necessary cooperative steps to keep Drew
out remains to be seen.

However, it is evident from the cavortings of Harold
Winch and company in B.C., that they intend to continue he
role that is rapidly isolating them from the stream of events
and is becoming so evident that their support in the province
is already on the wane.

[ES result of the plebiscite in the United Auto-

mobile Workers’ Union on the auestion of re-
taining laber’s No Strike pledge was an- over-
whelming majority in favor of retention. In, all
districts the result was the
same—in favor of the No
Strike pledge; this should
prove an effective answer to
those irresponsible elements
within the labor movement
who have been leading an
attack against labor which
has played into the hands/ of
those employers whose vision
of a happy world is a world
free from labor unions. As
a matter of fact that is
about the only freedom they
do believe in.

Most significant, however, were the returns
from the armed forces. Ninety three percent
voted in favor of the No Strike pledge. This is
something the labor movement in Canada should
tale special note of, for it effectively spikes the
main argument of the super leftists. Always
when backed up to the wall, they have advanced
the argument thet labor must not give an un-
conditional pledge because the rights of the boys
overseas must be protected.

Well the boys overseas have shown plainly”

that they are well aware of the best method to
protect their rights. First they took up arms
in front line combat to defeat the main enemy
of all mankind. Having taken on the main task
they asked that those who remained behind
should fulfill their end of the job by seeing that
the materials of war flowed uninterruptedly.
They know that it is of no assistance to them,
either immediately or in the future, to strike in
war industry. You can’t fight a war with your
tongue in your cheek and the best soldiers, yes
the best cause in the world can be defeated if
they lack the “tools to finish the job.” Spain is
a classic example. :

So the armed forces have given their answer
and administered a rebuke to all of those forces
who have attempted to use them as an excuse

Around Town

| HAP volunteered to take Pauline to the dentist,

and we were on a BCElectric monstrosity:
heading for downtown. Pauline stroked a swolk
len jaw and talked darkly about the Danger of

Infection, and was adding something about how ~

we'd all miss her when she was gone, so I tried
to concentrate on the people
around wus.

Across the aisle was a be-
furred woman who looked at
the other passengers as if
they nad escaped from a zoo,
talkéd petulantly about the
unfairness of the gasoline
ration, and swept into a tir-
ade on “the servant prob--
lem.” ;

“I don’t know what the
world’s coming to,’ she
sniffed. “The last girl D hir-
ed absolutely refuses to work : : =
Sundays unless she has Sat-
urdays off, and my dear! you know what week-
ends are. Ill certainly be glad when this war’s
over and things get back to normal.”

The “servant problem” is bothering a lot of
people these days. Newspapers are writing fran-
tie editorials on “how can we get them back in
the home, after they’ve worked on a war job?”
It seems that everybody realizes no young wo-
man who has worked an eight hour shift for a
decent wage will relish the prospect of working
a twelve-hour day for peanuts, whcih is what
domestic service usually means.

What about this “servant problem.” Is it
something the labor movement should concern
itself with? Personally, I believe it is. T do
not agree with those well-meaning, but unrealis-
tie souls who say “down with servants — let
everybody do their own work.” I believe domestic
workers are necessary. I am not worrying about
cafe society when I make that statement. I am
thinking. of the overburdened mother who would
not turn the care of her children over to a strang-
er, but would give her last nylons for one free
-day a week, for the talented woman who wants
to work for a living, for the woman who wants
to take part in important community woxk, but
who is tied down to a broom and a cookstove.

T THE same time, however, we must agree
that it is stupid and unreasonable to expect
household workers to return to prewar condi-
tions. No girl who has been “on her own” in a
war plant wants to start saying, “Yes, madam,”

in - assing By C. A: Saunders

fer opposing labor’s logical course and }
ing to sow con“usion in the ranks of the
by cpposition to the No Strike pledge
so called victory pledge of the CCl: su.
ments are straw men which mean exac
ing when put to the test. ‘
Victory plecge indeed. What quibblir
is and can be no victory pledge but the
pledge. The link between labor and ¢f
forces will be that much stronger be
the decision taken by the auto workers. ~

ABOR. both in the armed forces and {
will also acclaim the agreement rea”
tween Philip Murray of the CIO. Waillia
of the AFL, and Exic Johnston of the
of Commerce and other American busine
sertatives. The charter which results
series of discussions between the ty.
centers and representatives of business, ~
and asvicultural interests is a broad si
of policy which relates labor manageme
_ tions with the broad prospect of postw. —
national cooperation and industrial @
shaped in the conferences at Teheran a;
Gf my CCF friends will forgive me for ;-
ing those places). bd

The charter takes cognizance of certaj
mentals which must be observed if stahl
trial relations are to be observed and =
it by no stretch of the imagination
called socialism, it represents one of #
momentous advances made in the lah
But we can expect the usual reaction f-
CCF friends. Capitulating to the hes
collaboration and so on—ad nauseum: I ¢
it now, well maybe we shouldn’t foresta ©

The essence of this pact between la
management is the recognition of the * £
their mutual interests demand an ex
economy at home which in turn is de
on expanding world markets; and increas, ©
perity for all demands the highest degree j
duction and employment at wages ens |
steadily advancing standard of living ©

This recognition of mutual dep ,
augurs well for a period of postwar pr:
which may indeed bring us nearer to ¢
of the elimination of poverty. fee

:

By Cynthia Carter =

z “ |
again. Any discussion of the question —
to end in a vicious circle. Household
must have higher wages: the women wi
help can’t pay higher wages. But thei.
solution, best formulated by Mis. Dorise } |
who has taken a_ realistic, Sympathetic
her little book “New Worlds for Women. —

The whole system of household wor ~
be reorganized, she believes. Training s ©
signed agreements, minimum wages, un /
ment insurance and workmen’s compensa;
household workers are aij] necessary. Br
the average mother cannot nay a living > _
a domestic worker the whole problem m |
come a community project. Staffs of
must be organized, trained in efficient r
equipped with the latest labor-saying
and protected by their own union, Thr
vices would be available at standard rate
housewives. Community laundries, equi)
take cafe of everything from fine fabrics —
pers, community dining rooms where
could eat together, and a dozen other
could be undertaken. Does it sound too. _
be true? ‘Not at all, says Mrs. Nielsen.
things are already a reality in England : |
Soviet Union- “ou

But they won’t come unless we wi
them. And this is a job women are mos!
fied to do. So much is being accomplis
Political Action committees in trade uni
day that we are apt to forget that ]
action is not the sole property of labor |
Why not set up a political action commi
your women’s club? Why not. become 3
ber of your local Women’s Volunteer £
group, an organization which is vitally int
in this problem?- Why not get a group
neighbors together to discuss the subject
with other women to take action, let the ©
ment know how you feel about things,
a little organizine in your own communit
a “mother’s pool” for baby-minding is a
the richt direction, and a day nursery is
difficult a project. :

Get in and get at it. It may not |
before we can get things arranged so thé
ing a meal can be fun. and not a twe
times weekly drudge, and Junior can be s0
awtully sweet to-come home to after your |
day off, instead of a seven-day a week bu:
responsibility with “something always ©
ing, one end or t’other.” ? ee