10 B.C. LUMBER WORKER May 30, 1952 Next League Champions MWA SOFT-BALL TEAM, sponsored by Local 1-217 shows exceptional promise in Senior League games. | Lo ia ] Sg ; (Back row, left) Gordie Patterson, Bill Daniels, Bob Browne, Al Thiessen, Bill Gurvich, Bob Byford, (2nd row, | © ——~ . - Saeiaaan ~ left) Roy Corrigan, Frank Kozak, Wilf Wolters, Herb MacDonald, Art Hillstead, Ed Marining. (Front row, |JIM MacFARLANE, recently appoined organizer by Local 1-71 IWA to left) Eddie Bradley, Bobbie Byford. “assist in rapidly expanding growth of the Loggers’ Local. @ LABOUR’S FIGHT (CUSTOMERS RAID STRUCK STORE WINS REWARD — [eee ap ess Doportcare| "essag erat” chemcacununal ti na dle ah BS in Montreal are striking— been sent to the Dupuis|deader Mme. Therese Case in 1952—for a minimum wage of | Freres ,strikers by Eileen Tall-| told them they had the support By S. M. HODGSON | $25 a week. The 1,500 members| man, director of the CIO Depart-fof her party and of the labor of u Catholic Syndicate union are | ment Store Workers’ drive to or=| movement as a whole, Hape for & i {abate 5 Ves ize | also asking raises of $5 to $10! ganize the T. Eaton Co. stores in|a speedy victory by the Depart- Semper une we TUBE ees pack over pave Pomeslize || eekly, overtime pay. and a | Toronto, and by David Archer | ment Store Unionists was also the}many umportant gains made for organized workers; over # | day’ week. The Company claims | and Eamon Park on behalf of the expressed in a wire ‘from CCF* short span of time they are almost unbelievable, when you consider | it can’t afford higher pay rates, Ontario Federation of Labor and | National Se retary Lorne Ingle the fact that just over two hundred years ago Unions or labor | is trying to carry on business, | The Toronto Labor Council re-|to Syndicate leader Renee organizations were unheard of—for that matter even one hundred | PYViding self-service to police- | spectively. | Roeque: years ago, the great mass of the labor population did not under- | stand the basis of collective organization. | i Back in the carly days, the , Guilds, as they were known, were | first faced with the problem of | gaining recognition from the em- Many bitter struggles were fought—both on the picket line and in the Courts, the gains i 1 “secon- Yes, looking back-over the ages, organized labor has come a | long way but i enough. Our job will be uncom- pleted until the last accident in the industry is but a bad memory. | Labor’s Gain | ch matters as Vacation Time | id in that period), seniority, | UNION ht of recourse to Grievance lure, protection against ac- aoe EXPENSE ed utterly ic. | Just for a minute tet ws mt| SHOULD BE aside the hours of work, wage | problem pme of the many | Wonkine contin, and take x |OEDUCTIBLE sood look vha s called— industrial accidental death. In| If lawyers can deduct from those days employers paid little | their taxable income the expenses or no attention to accidents; if | of attending bar association con- ied from injury, | ventions, union members should someone else | be able to deduct the expenses place. If the injured | they make attending union con- d, there was no such | ventions, That’s the view of tion or pension, | Stanley Knowles (CCF-Winnipeg é : 2 {North Centre) expressed in the Compensation Won | House of Commons, May 5. As time progressed and the! Knowles pointed out that re- great mass of workers began to cent court decisions had confirm- understand the meaning? and ed that lawyers could deduct con- strength of organization, aj vention expenses. Questioned change was slowly brought about. about unionists’ expenses, Fi- Union* committees urged their! nance Minister Abbott. claimed employers to try out new means | that was purely matter for the of equipment with installed safe- | courts’ ty guards, © | Legislation was brought about | Change Law by the continued pressure insti- i tuted b& the various organized | » Knowles pointed out that in an Labow. Uni This legislation ¢atlier controversy over deduc- called fo? the setting up of tion of trade union dues the gov- Workmen's Compensation bodies, ¢'ument had intervened to change These bodies at first had little or #1 en courts interpreted it no power, but organized labor Provide for dues deductions, continued to hammer away at the! (Later the government reversed Government until they started to itself, conceded the Knowles t “teeth” into the Acts and ; quest for tax deduction of union ane |dues.) ‘The CCF member saw’ n° Working in conjunction with |?ason why the government cou the legislative field, Unions con- {Net intervene to change this law tinued to right clauses in the {When it had previously amended Agreement culling for the setting /@, law distorted hy a court deel up of Safety Committees to see | Sion. ‘ gia ees re A ar. the govornment \jarops in sie change he ates when the W, + court’s ruling is such as to give IWA Leads advaptage to trade _ unionists, the TWA in reeent why is it when a similar ruling jed the field; closer ves advantage to lawyers, the between Government | Minister of Finance simply say been worked | that it is strictly a question for | the courts?” asked Knowles, ’ “Yes Sir! .. . Since | bought Dayton 64s’, I feel like stepping out more at night. They leave you so fresh atter a day’s work.” Lhoe Manufacturing Co. 2246-50 E. HASTINGS ST. .VANCOUVER6,B.C. HA. 7131 (4.C.) Lid. iy