UNION SHOP PERSISTENT attacks by employers against the union shop, both in Canada and the United States, make it necessary that trade union mem- bers should be prepared to refute misleading state- ments on this issue. The infamous “right to work” Jaws, enacted in a number of the States at the instance of the em- ployers, are directed against union shop condi- tions, because of the employers’ desire to weaken the organizational strength of the unions. In Canada, attempts are being made, with somewhat different tactics, to outlaw union shop agree- ments, ‘ The determination displayed by the employers in this regard, should in itself convince the work- ers that union shop conditions offer a decided ad- vantage to trade union organization. Basically, the objection to the union shop, arises from the de- sire to eliminate unionization of the workers, when the opportunity arises. When the employers’ reasons for opposition to the union shop are analyzed, it will at once be seen why trade unions should drive for union shop con- ditions, while bargaining conditions are favorable. If it is made a feature of the contract now, it re- mains.as a protection for bargaining rights, when economic conditions are less favorable. Despite the employers’ claim that the union shop is undemocratic, the fact is that it is the only realistic basis for a democratic form of collective bargaining. Usually, at this point, the employer tries to con- fuse the union shop with the closed shop. Under union shop conditions, the employer is free to hire any person, whether a member of the union or not. Usually, thirty days or more are allowed, during which he can determine the aptitudes of the new employee. At the same time, the new employee is enabled to make his or her choice freely, before accepting any obligation regarding union membership. The crux of the matter is that every employee within the bargaining unit should be enabled to have a voice in all bargaining decisions. Union membership is the only legal medium for the exer- cise of such right. Once certified, the union is the legal bargaining agency for all the employees, who by majority vote made this choice. The union is required to bargain for all employees, whether members of the union or not. The union is held responsible for the ob- servance by the employees of the contract provi- sions. it follows that the rule requiring all employees in the bargaining unit to be members of the union is a rule intended to preserve their democratic rights. It is also a rule intended to prevent illegal action by the employer, in any attempt he may make to bargain with the unorganized employees to offset union demands. The demand for the union shop proposes no ele- ment of compulsion in any respect different from those which maintain law and order in the com- munity. In effect it provides for the equivalent in in- dustry of universal suffrage in the community. It further provides for bargaining majority rule by consent of those affected as in the community, government is conducted by consent of the goy- erned, expressed in the majority will. Those who desire more harmonious labor-man- agement relations would do well to encourage the orderly and democratic bargaining arrangements which are made possible only through the union shop. 10 oe i aint SILK 20 a STOCKING 17,000) registered DISTRICTS 5 10 old iain ie vote| ORGANIZED LABOUR registered DISTRICTS PEC. U.LC. Ruling Favors G.A.W. By CLIFFORD A. SCOTTON OTTAWA (CPA)—The federal government has con- ceded the position taken by the Canadian labor movement that supplemental unemployment benefit (popularly known as guaranteed annual wage) payments are “benefits” and not “wages”. The decision was handed down here recently by the Unemployment Insurance Commission. Thousands of Canadian Work- ers will be affected by the deci- sion which, had it gone the other way, would have rendered the SUB plans virtually useless..-Most of the plans provide for a five- cent hourly contribution by man- agement to a fund from which payments, to a maximum of $25 and ranging up to 65% of aver- age wages (when combined with regular unemployment insurance benefits) are made during time of layoff. The SUB payments continue for a certain period—up to 26 weeks—during the layoff. UIC Act Had the Commissioners decid- ed that SUB payments were “earnings” for the purposes of the Unemployment Insurance Act, any amount of the payments which exceeded $13 a week (in the case of top benefit category workers) would have been de- ducted from the regular unem- ployment insurance benefit. The U.I. Act now allows an unem- ployed worker in this category to make $13 a week in earnings without affecting his level of regular benefit. The Commission’s decision, given following a public hearing attended by union and company representatives, was made on the basis of six specific SUB plans which it studied. The plans cover about 42,000 workers and are as follows: Plans negotiated by the United Auto Workers with General Mo- tors and subsidiaries, Ford of Canada, Massey-Harris-Ferguson farm implement company, Elec- tric Auto-Lite of Sarnia, Ont., and Colville Industries of Cha- tham, Ont. Both of the latter companies are automobile parts plants. The sixth plan is one ne- gotiated with the Continental Can Co. of Hamilton by a CLC directly chartered local union. Individual Merits All plans will be considered on their individual merits after sub- mission to the Commission. If any SUB plans which have re- ceived UIC approval are renew- ed, or if any new plans are nego- tiated, they must be submitted or resubmitted to the Commission. The Unemployment Commission pointed out that no additional em- ployer contributions would be necessary in respect of payment to guaranteed annual wage funds. PROFITS SOAR TORONTO—Net profits of Canadian corporations in- creased a lusty 59 percent in 1955 over 1954, according to a survey by the authoritative “Financial Post”. In a table covering a cross- section of 344 Canadian com- panies, the Post showed that income after taxes jumped from $750 million in 1954 to $850 million last year. The following is a summary of a report prepared by J, Abrams, Local 1-357, IWA, and approved by J. T. Cummins, Local 1-217, IWA, the two employee repre- sentatives on the MSA Board of Directors, seeking re-election at the MSA Annual Meeting, Dec. 10th, in Vancouver. During the past’ year, we have written a serier of articles on MSA which were published in the B.C. Lumber Worker. In these articles we endeavoured to keep you informed on your rights and privileges as MSA members. Our term of office expires shortly, so that at this time, we would like to give you a, brief outline of our experiences on the board. The employer members have at all times been most co-operative and the doctors, whose medical terms are bewildering to the lay- man, have been most patient in explaining the meaning of the various terms. During our term of office, both NM.S.A. Directors To Be Elected Brother Cummins and myself have been honored by being sent to various MSA conferences and have sat on committees repre- senting the employee members. I have also had the honor of be- ing a vice-president for the past year. These past two years as your board representatives had given Brother Cummins and myself a keen interest in MSA business and so we strongly urge every MSA member to attend the an- nual meeting and listen to the directors give their reports. Fol- lowing the reports an election of new officers will be held. You may at this time elect two members’ to the board who will represent your group for a two- year term. Both Brother Cum- mins and myself will stand for re-election and we earnestly seek your support at this meeting which will be held Dee. 10th, at the Point Grey Junior High School, 37th and East Boulevard, Vancouver, 127 EAST 2nd AVE. WATSONS. * GLOVES «- THE Union Made for Union Trade Insist on WATSON’S LEATHER GLOVES THE ONLY LEATHER WORK GLOVES UNION MADE IN B.C. JOHN WATSON LTD. VANCOUVER, B.C.