There's nothing wrong with

| unions that Munroe can cure

By WILLIAM STEWART
© most Canadian workers
autonomy is a serious and pres-
Sing matter.

Just as-the Canadian people
are increasingly struggling to
€come masters in their own
Ouse, Canadian trade unionists
are striking out in all directions
for an end to the untenable re-
tionships which still do exist
Or Canadian membership in
‘S.-based international unions.

ile this is a multiform
Struggle and proceeds at a dif-
‘erent pace, and different ways
in different industries, the gener-
tendency is to begin at the
Present relationship ‘and re-
Change it to meet the eventual
4m of the full independence of
action. The Canadian working
Class has rejected, in its major-
Ity the idea that it has to smash
wat which it has painstak-
‘gly built, in order to erect a

Ore adequate representative

4nion structure,
There are many obstacles
Standing in the way to full Can-

an autonomy, not the least
of which is a rather entrenched
Uraucracy at many levels of
€ Canadian union structure
Which is just not prepared to
lead the kind of a struggle ne-
°essary to win through. This
Sometimes leads to frustration
nd an attempt to find short-cuts
Which end up dividing workers
tether than uniting them against
ied Principle target, big busi-

SS,

Nor are there any lack of un-
Scrupulous elements around and
Cutside the trade union move-
Ment who are prepared to fan
Whatever divisions may arise in

€ course of this complicated
Process to divide and weaken

© unions.
. Mr. Munroe, Liberal candidate
‘2 Hamilton East, has been
Shooting around from area to

area, mainly where the labor

movement is strong, wooing the

workers with .the new Liberal
song “Canadian Trade Unions
for Canadians.”

While Mr. Munroe is not the
author of this song, he is the
star vocalist trying to sing up
support in Canadian labor circles
for the new “Liberal” look for
the working class. .

He gave the Liberal party
faithful a sneak preview of his
‘tune, which is really somewhat
of a lament, in two issues of the
party organ Liberal Action, in
December 1967 and March-April
1968. :

Under the beguiling title
“There is a Trade Union Move-
ment in Canada. But is there a
Canadian Trade Union Move-
ment” he diagnoses the ills in
the Canadian labor movement
resulting from our domination
by American International Uni-
ons.

He then goes on to lament the
“inferior” status of Canadian
workers in international unions
and while weeping for their ills
smuggles into his text implicit
threats of government action to
rectify their problems.

One can perhaps be excused
for asking what credentials his
Liberal Party holds to warrant
its role of advisor to the Cana-
dian labor movement.

Secondly, any knowledge-
able observer of the Canadian
labor scene will tell you that
what Liberal strength there is in
the trade unions in Canada is
concentrated mainly in the build-
ing trades, or craft unions. These
international unions are the most
aloof from the membership and
with few exceptions: offer less
freedom of action for their mem-
bership than any other unions.
It is, in fact, well-known that it
was the “road-men” from these -
international unions who block-

éd the Canadian Labor Congress
from going further than it did
in the area of structural changes
in the Canadian trade unions at
their last convention. How is it
that these Liberal stalwarts do
not seem to have got the mes-
sage of their chief?

Finally the role of the Liberal
government in smashing a fully
independent Canadian union, the
Canadian Seamen’s Union in the
late 1940’s to replace it with the
Seamen’s International Union,
the corrupt union headed by Hal
Banks to whom they granted
citizenship, is a matter of record.
The big steamship companies of
Canada had decided to transfer
their ships from Canadian re-
gistry to foreign flags of con-
venience in order to dispense
with Canadian seamen and re-
place them with cheap crews
from low-wage countries.

The Canadian Liberal govern-
ment calmly and deliberately
assisted this scuttling of the
Canadian merchant marine and
the brutal chopping up of a
Canadian union to replace it ‘by
a U.S. gangster-led outfit as
part of its decision to integrate
Canada with the U.S.A. and
abandon the concept of our
country as a modern self reliant
country to which a merchant
marine is indispensable.

Perhaps one can say, the na-
ture of the beast has. changed
and Mr. Munroe, in the spirit
of Trudeaumania, has seen the
error of his party’s way and is
motivated by the real interests
of Canadian workers.

This is not the case, how-
ever. The Liberal party repre-
sents the interests of big-busi-
ness in Canada and its policy
towards the labor movement is
exactly the same as when it
smashed the Seamen’s union in
1949.

The only difference is that at

that time they had entered into
an unholy and unprincipled al-
liance with the CCF and right
wing labor leaders to destroy
the left in the labor movement
under the banner of McArthy-
ism. This considerably weaken-
ed the whole structure of the

Canadian trade union movement

in Canada. The bosses gained.

Now the Liberals are turning
on the NDP who have won a
wide measure of political sup-
port from organized labor and
are building up as a threat to
the continued rule of the old
line parties in Canada. A close
look behind those peddling the
Munroe line will expose the
strategists of the Liberal Party
fighting for control of the big
uniohs in the plants and indus-
tries of this country in order to
fasten more firmly the rule of
monopoly and its parties on
the people of Canada.

The answer to this lies in a
Strengthened fight by the mem-
bership to either push these
leaders in the right direction or
out of the way. All workers
will take heart and courage for
example in the fight that James
Bridgewood, Communist can-
didate in Hamilton East is un-
dertaking in his union, fhe
United Automobile Workers, to
challenge the made-in-America
constitution which tramples on
his democratic rights as a Cana-
dian citizen. It is interesting
that neither Mr. Munroe, nor
any member of his party has
rose to champion the cause of
Jim Bridgewood. In fact Mr.
Munroe, who is running in the
same constituency, has refused
to appear on the same platform
with Mr. Bridgewood.

Mr. Munroe should be told
that his wolfish fangs show
through his sheep’s clothing and
the Canadian working class is
not about to be bitter.

“There is a great need for
bringing the in-plant life
nd problems of working
en and women into the
political life of our country,”

LABOR

Jim Bridgewood, Com- |

‘The big modern plants,’
Re continued, “are training

| : lan ‘gates end estab-
loes not now exist.”

Liberals ditch Freedman report

After sitting on the recom-
Nendations of the Freedman Re-
Port on what the federal gov-
‘tment should do about. the
fects of technological changes

Working conditions in indus-
ty, the Liberal Party has the
Ball to publicize its election
Statement on labor policy as go-
the Part of the way in meeting

Teport’s proposals.
thevothing could be further from
eS truth, For the Liberal Party
oy ea rejects the basic re-
R mendations of the Freedman

Port.

3 ate Royal Commission, head-
% by Mr. Justice Freedman,
wauired into the Nakina and
ainwright work stoppages to
Protest the unilateral actions of
the CNR in scheduling run
it Toughs of trains. As a result of
S enquiry the Commission re-
™Mmended that labor and
chas28ement should negotiate
whinges in working conditions
hich affect workers as well
Management, when these

Changes take place during the

SESCRAT Ss8

lifetime of the working agree-
ment. The Commission proposed
also that if negotiations do not
take place voluntarily, the gov-
ernment should bring in legisla-
tion to enforce it. ee

After three years of waiting
it is quite apparent that industry
has almost unanimously rejeted
the Freedman proposals. Big
business intends that the costs
of technological changes should
fall on the workers, while the
fruits of such changes should
accrue to the owners of industry.

During these three years the
Liberals have been the govern-
ment in Ottawa. During that
time they have stubbornly re-
fused to enact the .legislation
needed to safeguard the interests
of working people in this era of
rapid technological change. Now,
because of the elections, they
are making promises which are
typical Liberal evasions.

If they are returned to power
on June 25, the Liberals pro-
mise to enact a law requiring
employers to give at least three
months’ notice of job displace-
ment to be caused by. severe

technological change. The notice
of displacement to be given as
well to government  depart-
ments and municipalities.

For its part, the federal gov-
ernment would provide “reason-
able income maintenance” to
workers losing their jobs be-
cause of changes in government
policies and programs and un-
able to obtain other employment
to benefit from training and re-
location programs.

Compare these employer pro-
tectionist promises with Mr.
Freedman’s recommendations
for legislation to compel reluc-
tant employers to negotiate with
labor on changes in working
conditions brought about by
technological change.

In an article “Forward From
Freedman,” J. M. Callaway of
the Brotherhood of Railroad
Trainment, writes: “The Freed-
man report confirmed what was
well known for some time; that
there is a gap in the Industrial
Relations and Disputes Investig-
ation Act, which by its silence
permits employers during the
closed period of a -collective

agreement to run roughshod
over the legitimate rights of
their employees, in the name of

progress and __ technological
change under the guise of the
fallacious and mischievous

“management’s rights doctrine”
or “residual rights theory”.

The Submission of the Ontario
Federation of Labor to the Rand
Commission made these points
against the ‘“management’s
rights doctrine”:

The question of “manage-
ment’s rights” is the issue at the
root of many of today’s prob-
lems. Presently, management as-
sumes all of the rights and privi-
leges of the work place not spe-
cifically modified by the collec-
tive agreement. Unless it is
otherwise spelled out in the
agreement, management can
change schedules of production,
introduce new methods, speed
up production lines, and so on.
Grievances. arising from such
matters are not subject to griev-
ance procedure, or have the em-
ployees the legal right to take
strike action. This results in an
accumulation of a great number

- PACIFIC- TRIBUNE—JUNE 24> 1968—Page 52

bh snnG—-8a2f

of grievances for which there is
no machinery to have them aired,
This is the cause of most wildcat
strikes.

This is a substantial indict-
ment of the “management’s
rights doctrine’ so jealously.
guarded hy the employers and
so patently protected by succes-
sive Liberal and Tory govern-
ments.

Contrasting sharply with the
Liberal’s management Protec-
tionist labor policy is that of the
Communist Party. This party
would amend labor laws to give
workers and their unions the
right to a voice in all company
decisions on investment policy,
technological change, work
loads, closing or moving plants.
It would legislate to give work-
ers the right to negotiate, back-
ed up with the right to strike,
on these matters whenever cir-
cumstances warrant.

The Communist approach to
labor - management relations
would bring industrial relations
into the 20th century. On this
score alone Communist candid-
ates should get workers’ votes.

iY shu SVIUGIN] DidiIDA

Eee