ie

History of the I.W.A.

Continued from previous page

him hoped to weave the movement more
into the Canadian mainstream. Organiza-
tional successes since 1943, and especially
since the 1946 strike, must have brought
into the organization many operations that
were not led by Communists, and the suc-
cessful drive in the Interior of the Province
would have accelerated the trend towards
“mainstreaming the I.W.A.”

Many old-time loggers, veterans of the
bare-knuckle, no-holds-barred unionism of
the early thirties, resented this trend in
much the same way that they had opposed
or resented the ‘United Front’ shift in
1935.°" The decision to settle the 1946
strike on the Sloan recommendations, in
part because of concern that the party and
its forces might permanently alienate farm-
ers from the Fraser and Okanagan valleys,
who relied on mill box factories to ship
their produce, was strongly resisted by
many militant loggers.

I.W.A. old-timers like Arne Johnson,
Trygve Gunerad, and Jack Higgins, may
have seen secession from the International
as a means of reversing the trend toward
this “moderated” unionism. It may be that
they concluded that they were going to lose
the Vancouver local, and perhaps the
sawmill section, or a large portion of it,
anyway.

At the leadership level, figures like Har-
vey Murphy might have encouraged such a
view. Some may have concluded that, espe-
cially given the prevailing anti-Communist
hysteria, which reached a climax a few
years later with the U.S. Senator McCarthy
hearings, the best course for the movement
would be to “lay low” for a while in Com-
munist-controlled unions that “commanded
the heights of the economy” - unions in log-
ging, mining, fishing.

Jean Pritchett, Harold’s widow, evidently
using his notes”, tells the tale: “By the
early months of 1950, it was apparent that
the majority of the members had elected to
remain with the LW.A’

mong the reasons for the “white

bloc” victory: the “terribly sloppy
bookkeeping,” Labour Relations

Board rulings that contracts were

with the I.W.A., and that “raiding” could
not occur until the just signed 1948 con-
tract was ten months old. In the logging
camps, company decisions to raise board
charges from $2.00 to $2.50 per day, taking
‘back about half of the 13 cent increase,
causing some resentment. Frank Howard,
who was soon to be Local 71’s first “white”
eee, recalls using these effectively to

eep loggers in the IWA.~

At a deeper level, the anti-red forces had
managed to force the “Communist” issue.
Contrary to subsequent suggestions, (for
example, Lembcke and Tattum’s “One
Union in Wood”), the District Leaders tried
to avoid larger political issues. “In the Con-
ventions, and to some extent in the Lumber
Worker, they talked about the Marshall
Plan. But in the lunch rooms, they talked
about being good negotiators, about griev-
ances.”

As with organizing drives before and
since, activists stayed with the lines that
worked for them. Frank Howard avoided
the “Communist” issue in logging camps.

“There was beginning to be a sense that
it wasn’t quite the right thing to be a Com-
munist, but in the camps and mines, there
was still also a sense that to be a genuine
working man, you almost had to be a Com-
munist, or at least a Socialist.”*”

But in the mills around Vancouver, where
a growing “white bloc” led by Lloyd Whalen,
Tom McKenzie, Stu Hodgson, etc., had long
been agitating against Communist leader-
ship, political affiliation was hotly debated,
and generally won by the anti-Commu-
nists.'*”

In the sawmills, there was an air of
inevitability to the short contest. At the
quarterly meeting that formally adopted

the proposal to secede, Lloyd Whalen,
speaking against the motion, wondered
“Why are you handing the organization
over to us like this?”””

The old leadership had many admirers
who were far from the Communist Party.
In the 1947 District Officer elections held
in march of 1948, thousands of such mem-
bers voted for them, as dedicated, deter-
mined and able trade unionists. There was
a sense that the hard-nosed employers had
to be confronted by equally hard-nosed
union reps. A sense that, since companies,
in their heart of hearts, did not believe that
there should be unions, it was not a bad
thing that they be matched with union reps
that did not believe there should be compa-
nies. The “white bloc’s” triumph, at least in
the sawmill section, was in changing the
question from “Do you
want hard-nosed un-
ion leaders and nego-
tiators?” to “Do you
want a Communist-
dominated union?”

How long could
they have lasted, but
for their “terrible, ter-
sa rible mistake?” It is

4 difficult to imagine
¢FrankHoward any circumstances
under which they could have retained their
full control for long. Even if the Interna-
tional officers had
clumsily put the Dis-
trict under trustee- 7
ship, and the Commu-
nist leadership had
that much more
promising basis for
“breaking away,” the
white bloc would have
continued to grow; in
Victoria, with leaders
like Roy Whittle and
Jock McKenzie, in Duncan with Joe Morris
and John Ulinder, in Alberni with Walter
Allen and John Squire. With the question
of Communist leadership placed before the
membership by an increasing tide of anti-
Communist sentiment, and with able,
determined leadership provided by the
C.C.L., an eventual victory by white bloc
forces was inevitable.

But they could almost certainly have
retained the leadership in most logging
operations, and of Local 71, for a long time.
Frank Howard had tough experiences to
illustrate how faithful older loggers, espe-
cially Scandinavian fallers, were to the old
leadership. Men like Harold Pritchett,
Ernie Dalskog, Hjalmar Bergren, and John
McCuish would have found some way of
exercising their considerable abilities in
the union, even if out of office. And dozens
of other dedicated activists, who were ban-
ished from holding office by being placed on
the “errant members” list, would have
remained active and influential.

Ray Haynes testified to the fundamental
role played by B.C.’s left unionists while he
was Secretary of the Province’s Federation
of Labour. “The Labour movement needs a
strong left opposition, to keep it on its toes,
to discipline it.” °” Many dedicated and
able I.W.A. trade unionists were for decades
prevented from playing that role by the
“terrible, terrible mistake.”

he kind of unionism that began to
] | 1 grow in the I.W.A. after October of

1948 - militant as to wages and ben-

efits, and politically active enough,
unlike their U.S. counterparts, to partici-
pate effectively in the fight for social bene-
fits - ensured a level of prosperity for wood-
workers that would have astonished the
earlier union strugglers who built the orga-
nization that made the progress possible.

Ideologically, the post-1948 leaders were
certainly closer to the views of rank and
file woodworkers than its more doctrinal
predecessors.

But the success of the I.W.A., and of
North American Labour generally, over the
following quarter of a century depended
largely on the provisions of what has come

to be called the “post-war consensus’; full
employment provided by Keynesianism,
the right to militant union action to improve
wages and conditions, generous and expand-
ing social programs.

This broad social consensus came under
attack from a resurgent right wing in the
1970’s. If that unraveling of the basis of
moderate union success continues, it may
be.necessary at some point to return to
unionism with a “glowing dream.” The
dream will have to be fundamentally differ-
ent from the “Marxist-Leninist” vision that
inspired the pre-October, ‘48 I.W.A. leader-
ship, but it will share with them a rejection
of the ugly plutocracy that now governs
and disfigures us.

Next Issue: Rebuilding the Union in North-
ern Ontario and B.C., and the 1952 strike.

FOOTNOTES

(1) Minutes of a Special Meeting of
Local 1-71, Sept. 20, 1948.
I.W.A.Archives.

(2) Magnuson, Bruce, “The Untold Story
of Ontario’s Bushworkers.” Progress
Books, Toronto, 1982. pp 186-87.

(3) Interview of Gladys Hiland, ( previ-
ously Shunaman) by Clay Perry.
May, 1997. I.W.A. Archives,

(4) Lumber Worker, March 24, 1948.
1.W.A. Archives.

(5) Interview of John Squire by Clay
Perry, 1984. (I.W.A.. Archives) Per-
sonal communication from Clyde
Perry to author.

(6) Lembcke and Tattum, “One Union in
Wood.” Harbour Publishing. Madeira
Park, B.C. 1984. p 117.

(7) Lumber Worker . Sept. 8, 1947 and
Interview of Jack Greenall by Clay
Perry. 1982. I.W.A. Archives.

(8) Correspondence between Interna-
tional President “Red” Fadling and
Jack Greenall, Sept., 1947, and
“T.W..A. Fiasco,” a pamphlet by
Greenall. I.W.A. Archives.

(9) R.C.M.P. records from National
Archives. I.W.A. Archives.

(10) Abella, Irving, “Nationalism, Com-
munism and Canadian Labour.” Uni-

versity of Toronto Press, 1973. Chap-
ters 6 and 7.

(11) Proceedings of the Seventh Annual
Convention of the Canadian Con-
gress of Labour. I.W.A. Archives.

(12) Abella, op cit., pp 126 to 128.

(13) Proceedings of the Fifth Annual Con-
vention of the B.C. Federation of
Labour, Sept. 4th and 5th, 1948.
L.W.A. Archives.

(14) Interviews of Ray Haynes, Bob Blan-
chard and Craig Pritchett, May,
1997. I.W.A. Archives.

(15) Minutes of special meeting,
Local 1-71 op. cit.

(16) Abella, op. cit., p. 132.
(17) LW.A. Archives.
(18) Abella. op. cit. p134.

(19) Pritchett, Jean, Widow of the late
Harold Pritchett. “Out of the Woods,”
p. 170

(20) Interview of Ernie Dalskog by Clay
Perry, 1982. I.W.A. Archives.

(21) Pritchett, Jean. op. cit. pp 150, 151.

(22) Interview of Frank Howard by Clay
Perry, May 1997. I.W.A. Archives.

(23) Interview of Cliff Rungren by Clay
Perry, May 1997. Rungren was in
1948 a member of the L.P.P. and a
Vancouver Local I.W.A. Activist.

(24) Frank Howard, op cit.

(25) Interviews of Bob Blanchard and
Ray Haynes by Clay Perry, May,
1997. I.W.A. Archives.

(26) Cliff Rungren, op. cit.
(27) Ray Haynes, op. cit.

LUMBERWORKER/JULY 1997/13