viii my)
i

TH,

al

: MF

if
Hy
Wi)

its ahites ?

NE * Upp: “ “YY jt 71

tpi ge ta Renee as, cia Pad oe Ny Sea ce caren pu oreayy, ” 3 , a

bee (ft. Nt eect LE MM TEMA MAME. hn Wer acceacied LEH ere abt TN. AEE A EEL

wol 73. Noo 27 Vancouver, B.C., Friday, July 2, 1948 Five Cents
The special flood session of the legislature faces the firm demands of an Vancouver Trades and Labor Council and B.C. Federation of Labor are de-
aroused people.. The Coalition government, whose criminal negligence is manding full compensation and guarant against recur :
ek eta ide ono a eRe ES ee nee a Aneel sea e peer doG Se The Coalition says it will restore buildings to their foundations and clean
\ i f iti ader, Says, : :
sHiighe ood ae as ‘tie alles vand you can sum it up by saying the govern- them out, but refuses to compensate residents for loss of income. It talks about
t is in a complete daze.” inist flood controls but its legislation and deeds remain to be seen.
abe proeinsey toe he ee agitate sana See 4 pad . What is done depends—not on Coalition promises which are worth less than a
Anscomb’s attempt to shift flood blame by claiming it was “an act 0

reiterated LPP demands for total compensation for fiood losses, halting of bucket of Fraser mud—but on public pressure. This disaster must never recur.
rai ; Ah ;
Speculation, and immediate action for river control. Turn on the heat.

negotiations edged
District President Ernie Dalskog, backed by a 95 percent
vote of the membership, branded the latest operator offer
as “sheer nonsense” and the union recessed negotiations to
chart a cotirse of action in’ view of flat turndown of union
proposals.

Union negotiators threw the book at underhand tactics
of Stuart Agency, operators’ bargaining mouthpiece, in a
hard-punching counter-offensive that left R. V. Stuart
without reply, his silence tacitly confirming union charges
of violation of collective bargaining principles.

Inadequate daily press reports continue to confuse the
issues. Stuart Agency, seeking to poison public opinion
and divide the union, is pouring out a continuous stream of
vilification of the union leadership and falsification of the
facts through such outlets as_ its notorious professional
anti-labor publicist, red-baiting Bob Morrison.

_ The following facts stand out as salient developments
in the IWA’s fight for a 35-cent wage boost, union security
and welfare fund.

Following a recess of a month in which 95 percent of
the membership voted to reject a union-busting offer sub-
mitted by the operators, the IWA went back into negotia-
tions June 24 to be met by the same Stuart offer with’ only
inconsequential modifications, except that the wage offer
is now dated for acceptance July 5 instead of June 20.

The offer of 8 percent or 10 cerits increase had already
been kicked out by a secret ballot vote of the IWA. Pro-
posals for contract fallers and buckers, and for shingle
sawyers and packers, had been likewise rejected.

Offer of 39 cents per day increase for cook and bunk-
house labor was new but branded immediately by the union
as grossly unfair and unacceptable since it was less than

one half of even employer proposals for the rest of the
union,

Stuart failed to lay down a supplementary proposal
for adjustment in hourly rates for trainmen.

But he continued to demand that the [WA drop the
Mat = union shop and welfare fund proposals and surrender the
40-hour week.

: &
J : : It was at this point that Dalskog called the Stuart
on offer “sheer nonsense” and “evidence of a callous disregard

for the welfare of the men and women who ‘have earned
for B.C’s timber pirates the greatest profit rakeoff in
lumber history.”

nae S The union countered the following day with its own
© proposals designed to enable speedy settlement. On hours
: of work it proposed that the work week should consist of

SEE BACK PAGE Continued on back page
SEE IWA NEGOTIATIONS