B.C. LUMBER WORKE R UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE . ‘The following questions and Be : answers have been received: .Q—I understand the unem-! nt insurance fund is’ now | aout half a billion | In view of that, should not contributions be reduced and | benefits increased? A—From one viewpoint the unemployment insurance fund is large. It totals $517,650,000. owever, one must look all ound this subject. If Canada Should encounter an unemploy- ment condition similar to that which taka ba in the early ’30’s, it would not take very long to de- plete the unemployment insur- ance fund. The fund is constantly subject to review by a special committee which concludes from time to time whether or not it is too large or insufficient. This committee which is representa- tive of both workers and employ- ers, in its last report to Parlia- ent, said: “The fund now jounts to nearly $45,000,000. size is the result of seven years of high employment as well as of some increase in contribu- tions because of increases in earnings. It must be borne in mind, however, that as more and more of the insured population ive reached the higher earning jasses the scale of the fund's mtingent liabilities has also in- creased. So far the experience of the fund has been entirely that of unusually high employment of long duration. There has been no impact of depression. It is, there- fore, impossible to judge of the adequacy of the fund in the face of severe depression. It can be said only that it is more adequate | than a smaller fund would be and that it is gratifying that so large a reserve has been accumulated.” ? Q—Who contributes to the un- employment insurance fund, be-| sides the workers? A—The unemployment insur- ance fund has been built up by contributions from insured work- ers, their employers and the Do- minion Government. Workers and employers contribute approxim- ately equal amounts according to a schedule of contributions. The Government contributes 1/5 of the total amount contributed by the other two. ‘The entire cost of operating unemployment insur- ance is paid out of the general funds of the Government. It is not a charge against the unem- The purpose of this col- umn is to provide a means whereby our readers who want information on Unem- ployment Insurance can ob- tain it. If you have a question re- specting Unemployment In- surance, write it out and send it to the editor. For identification purpeses it would be well to include your name and address. We will send your ques- tion to the Unemployment Insurance Commission at its head office in Ottawa. Phe answer will be pub- lished as soon as possible after being received. Do not hesitate to send in your question or questions. The Commission has ad- vised us that it will be glad _fo furnish answers as rap- idly as possible. - ‘80 SEND IN YOUR QUESTIONS ? Q.—Why is a person who can- not work because of illness re- fused benefit? A.—The unemployment insur- ance plan provides for insurance against unemployment. In order to draw insurance a person must be willing to work and able to work, It is not insurance against sickness. If benefit was paid to all sick persons the withdrawals from the fund would be very greatly increased resulting in in- ceased contributions. 2? Q.—It has been suggested that benefits should be increased. Is there any good reason why this should not be done? A—Unemployment insurance is not relief. It is insurance. Life insurance companies pile up very large reserves. They do this so as to be in a position always to meet any possible demands owing to an increasing death rate. The unemployment insurance fund, which is built up on an actuarial basis, must be regarded in this light. If benefits were increased, there would be little or no reserve to be utilized in times of severe unemployment. The effort is to make sure that the fund will be adequate even under conditions of much greater unemployment than has yet been encountered since the re ployment insurance fund. plan became effective. LOGGERS WORKMEN AYTON SHOE . CO. (B.C.) BY EXPERT CRAFTSMEN LOGGERS Work Boots ASK for THEM LTD. ; Sparks On “Town Mi leeting’”’ ey J Mahoney Two well-known trade} trade union officials became involved in a stormy debate on the subject of free enter-, prise when on the program of Town Meeting in Canada in- the Boilermakers’ Hall, Feb. 25th. William Mahoney, West- ern Director of the Canadian Congress of Labor and Colin Cameron of the Public Re- search Bureau exposed the present “free enterprise”| system as monopolistic and anti-labor. Alderman R. K. Gervin, Secretary of the Vancouver Trades and ‘La. of the Vancouver Board of Trade in defending capital- ism as the best of all pos- sible systems. audience of trade unionists, which gave Alderman Gervin a noisy and unfriendly reception, when he stated that he was ui- aware of any serious unemploy- ment or poverty in Canada at the present time. It required an ap- peal from Moderator Helps to restore order. LABOR COUNCI Anticipating a provincial ‘The committee was formed af- ter the chairman ordered the names of two LPP-WIUC sup- porters within the Council struck from the list of those nominated. The committee will consist of the three table officers — Presi- dent Pen Baskin; Vice-president, George Mitchel, Local 1-357; and secretary, James Bury, plus Tom MacKenzie, Local 1-217; Hugh Allison, CBRE and George Home, secretary-treasurer of the B.C. Federation of Labor. Secretary Bury announced that the move, in support of Canadian Congress of Labor policy, was to set up committees in various local unions, with a central com- mittee from Vancouver Labor Council. “We feel this is a necesary step in carrying out Congress Policy,” said Bury. The two “WIUC” support- ers—Bill Stewart, and W. L. White, Marine Workers and Boilermakers’ Union—were not allowed to be nominated after President Baskin drew atten- tion to the Congress ruling on those eligible to serye on the political action committees. “NO”—BASKIN _ “As your chairman,” said Bas- kin, “I cannot accept nominations of those who are members or known supporters of political parties not endorsed by the Can- adian Congress of .Labor.” This was obviously a direct reference to Stewart and White, both prominent in Communist circles, and both adherents to the Pritchett-Dalskog move. Federation secretary George Home classed Stewart and White ‘as people whose “main intent was to disturb and destroy the policy of the CCL.” “Tt is not necessary to be a member of the CCF to partici- pate in political action com- mittees,” he stressed. “You cannot allow people to serve who will give only lip service to the committee, but there is no obstruction in the way of any person who feels that by his contribution he can help to fulfil the overall policy and ob- jectives of the Canadian Con- { gress of Labor.” Stewart aieaitted jee ore dis- agreed “pretty nearly per- cent” with the political policies of the CCL. bor Council, sided in with’ (CCL) & Gervin (TLC) ‘|, Battle Over “Free Enterprise” ( man welfare above the almighty »|dollar. He referred to bitter les- sons experienced by labor due to growing monopolistic tendencies, t ts : 2 ‘|Tack of social conscience by the baer 4 ‘|large corporations, and unbridled : competitive privacy in the name of free enterprise. E -.|_ “We are convinced,” stated Mahoney, “that the present sys- tem is neither free nor enterpris- jing, is monopolistic in nature, ‘|and is not working to the best interests of the millions repre- .| sented by organized labor.” Alderman Gervin, taking the opposite point of view, asserted that due to free enterprise trade unions enjoy better social condi- |tions, more security, and higher standards of living, as well as jeetelation. which has proved a jon. } Tom Norris, K.C., President ; The debate attracted a large|) BILL MAHONEY Mahoney declared that free enterprise as known in Canada was not the best system for or- ganized labor. The best system would be one: which placed hu- L REJECTS LPP-WIUC SUPPORTERS election in June, Vancouver Labor Council set up a political action committee at its meeting on Tuesday, February 22. without dissentients, endorsing the policies of the CCL with re- gard to the personnel of political action committees. CCL INSTITUTE AT UBC At the final assembly of the more than two hundred trade union students who attended the CCL Weekend Institute at the University’ of B.C., marked en- thuisasm as evident over the success of the project. Seventy members of the IWA had en- rolled. On behalf of the University, Dean S. N. F. Chant, Faculty of ‘Arts and Sciences, expressed sa- tisfaction over the cooperative attitude of the students, with the regret that it had not been pos- sible to give more time to educa- tional work of such high value. Dr. Norman MacKenzie, presi- dent of the University, and A. R. Mosher, National President of the Canadian Congress of Labor, opened the Institute on the morn- ing of February 26. For two days, the students divided into ten classes, listened, questioned and discussed the work of trade unions under the leadership of well-qualified instructors. Congratulations on the success of the Institute was extended by Murray Cotterill, Political Action Vancouver. “The results of this training will yield enormous benefit to the unions,” he stated. “We must now determine for what purposes and by what means we may employ our union strength for the betterment of our members and the whole com- munity.” oi “An immediate field of action opens with regard to the political questions which affect the work- ers. We intend to make the dec- laration of the Congress on po- litical action a reality this year,” he added, as he outlined plans for the Political Action Work- shop in Vancouver, February 28. SUPPORT OUR ADVERTISERS The meeting adopted a motion, SSS Director CCL, on his arrival in|~ “Few people in Canada,” he declared, “who do not believe in. the free enterprise system. Only a few who lack enterprise have sought to convince large groups that they may get what they de- sire by changing the Govern- ment. Free enterprise can and will proyide a decent standard for Canadian people.” “Trade unionists, discard any thought you may have of chang- ing your system, ‘and drive for even better conditions under our tried and sound free enterprise.” MORE “BEEFS” FROM INTERIOR Quite some time ago, at an Ex- ecutive Board meeting in New Westminster Local, there was a heated debate as to whether the Local should accept the added responsibilities of looking after the mills in Fert Langley and Pitt River area. Those were the days when ‘there were a lot of heated debates and Brother Als- bury used to rap the gavel on the table and feel like rapping it around somebody’s neck. Those were the days when the PARTY MEMBERS used to meet in the Russell Hotel to try and figure out ways and means of disrupt- ing’ our progressive ideas. Any- way, to get back to the point, there were a few felt that Fort Langley and Pitt River were too far away to service properly. After all, Pitt River is 20 miles out of town. Brother Lynch, secretary of Kamloops Local, has membership scattered in all directions for one hundred and fifty miles. The Re- velstoke Lumber Company and Arrowhead Wood Preservers, with a combined membership of 40, are on a divisional point east of Kamloops. How would you like to go that far for a meeting? BILL’S JOB Bill has another mill at Blue River, that is one hundred and thirty-five miles north of Kam- Joops, with about twenty mem- bers. There is no road up that far, the only way to get in is by train. Another mill at Avyola, about thirty miles south of Blue River, has about the same num- ber of members. The rest of the operations are not so bad, they are within a hundred miles of Kamloops but most of the time the roads are such that you cannot get through. At best of times, this Local has about five hundred members. Scattered over such a large area you can well imagine what a job it is to maintain a local under those circumstances. It -is being done, with the cooperation of some very good shop stewards out on the job, but don’t forget these boys need your help in com- ing negotiations. Five hundred woodworkers are a lot of workers for the boss to play against you when things start geting tough. Be seeing you. Kelowna Joe.