“heave

s was to be expected, the big monopoly car insurance

A underwriters are planning to spend a lot of dough

and mount a big campaign against any and all government

takeover in the field of car insurance. Having transformed this

industry into one of the most lucrative areas of barefaced

robbery that monopoly finance has so far perfected, it was a

foregone conclusion that these car insurance extortionists

would set up a howl against a government-controlled car
insurance scheme.

With one hundred thousand dollars or more to get their
campaign off to a good start to block the NDP government
scheme, these car insurance freebooters or ‘‘free

enterprisers’’ or whatever, have already trottedoutaveryold .

very moth-eaten slogan to match, viz., the right of ‘‘free
choice’ for the customer. This bleating wail about ‘‘free
choice’’ isaccompanied by another bleat, the ‘‘right’’ of these
car insurance hijackers to compete with any government
scheme that might be established.

This free choice noise has a familiar ring. A handful of
professional pill-pushers used it loudly in Saskatchewan a
short while ago in an attempt to block medicare in that
province. ‘‘Socialism’’ they called it, which would eliminate
the ‘‘free choice”’ relationship between the patient and his or
her favorite pill-pusher.

In the wider field of labor-capital relations this ‘‘free
choice’ drivel has been worked overtime. In anti-union
campaigns a worker should have the right of ‘‘free choice’’ to
belong to a union or not — thus putting the kibosh on union
contracts, the closed shop etc. When the bosses clamor about
the ‘‘right to work”’ they mean that the worker should have the
right to scab and to work, regardless of union jurisdiction—
not-so-clever method of union busting.

In collective bargaining, the ‘‘free choice’ gimmick is
alsotrottedout. . . tobe applied widely and indiscriminately
when workers affected are voting on the terms of a new union
contract. Under socialism, of course, in the lingo of big
business, there is no ‘‘free choice’’, consequently socialism is
all bad. Why, you haven’t even the ‘‘free choice’’ to become

‘ unemployed as we can in B.C.— or Canada!

On the other hand, this right of “‘free choice’ has worked
magnificently for the great car insurance robbery, as any
glance at their expanding and posh offices, or your insurance
rates over the past few decades or so, will eloquently
illustrate.

Skyrocketting premiums and illegal penalties are added to
those of an authorized legal system. For some accident or
other the car owner may have paid his debt as fixed by the
court but then the car insurance buccaneers extort even more.
And if the offender wore his hair long or grewabeardor worea
style of dress that didn’t correspond to the sauve attire of the
car insurance pirate, look out: the premium, without any by-
your-leave would have soared to unimaginable proportions
and delivered with a take-it-or-leave-it ultimatum — the ‘‘free
choice.”’

For many young folks the premium oncar insurance, with
all sorts of deductibles buried in the fine print; is often higher

than the value of the ‘‘heap,”’ with the car insurance sharks.
accountable to no one for their barefaced robbery of young

and old alike. A skin game of the highest order which can only
be finally and completely terminated by a government-
operated car insurance scheme.

And don’t mistake the charming pianissimo voice on your
radio for that of John Doe making love to his Amorita over the
garden fence. Nothing of the sort. Itis merely anagentforCar
Insurance Plunderbund giving you more of his ‘‘free choice”’
soothing syrup, and pleading to be allowed to ‘‘compete’’ —
brought to you on behalf of a long-established extortionist
racket that is hopefully and happily nearing an end!

SHANNON ESTATES DEAL

NEW SHIPMENT FROM THE
U.S.S.R.

Beautiful linens and embroidered articles —
hand painted wooden ware — dolls — wall
plaques — pottery — records — books —
transistor radios and watches.

For items that are different, shop at

GLOBAL IMPORTS

2677 East Hastings St.,
Vancouver 6

Phone 253-8642

Open from 9 to 5, six days a week to serve you

PACIFIC TRIBUNE—FRIDAY, JANUARY 19, 1973—PAGE 2

Mayor Art Phillips caves in —
to developers in first week —

By ALD. HARRY RANKIN

It didn’t take Mayor Art
Phillips long to cave in to the
developers — just one week in
fact. As soonas Wall & Redekop,
the real estate developers who
want to turn the Shannon Estate
into an apartment project, threa-
tened the city with legal action,
Mayor Phillips threw in the
towel and instructed city offi-
cials to go ahead and give the
developers the building permits
they wanted.

Mayor Phillips didn’t have to
do that. He could have fought the

_ action in court and this is what

he should have done. Further-
more the city could re-zone the
area back to single family
residential. If the real estate
interests want to take that issue
to court — let them. We have a
strong case when we argue that
City Council has aright and duty
to re-zone in the public interest.
The group of citizens fighting
the real estate take-over of
Shannon Estates is now in the
ridiculous position of having to
foot the bill for legal action to

stop the developers— a fight that

the city should be taking up on
their behalf. Is this the sort of
thing we can expect in the future
from Mayor Phillips despite all
his fine sounding inaugural
speech about guiding ‘‘the
development of the city accord-
ing to the wishes of the people?”’
* * *

From press reports you know
that at the so-called ‘‘secret
session”’ of City Council. on
January 9, I voted against the
motion to retire City Com-
missioner Gerald Sutton Brown.
The only other alderman voting
against was Marianne Linnell.
The six for it were Mayor Art
Phillips and Aldermen Fritz
Bowers, Michael Harcourt,
Geoff Massey, Darlene Mazari
and William Gibson. Mayor
Phillips had indicated earlier
that he was planning such action.

I have probably clashed with
Commissioner Sutton Brown
over the years more than any
other alderman. His philosophy
about civic development is
probably the opposite of mine.
But, and this is the crucial
question, Sutton Brown assumed
such powers and carried out such
tasks as were assigned to him by
the NPA majority on Council.

He knew what was expected of
him and he delivered: Asa civil
servant he did what he was told.
Whether or not the reports he
brought in agreed with his own
philosophy about the city is
immaterial.

City Council had the final say
on every assignment given to
him and on every report he
brought in. City Council has to
assuine that responsibility. And
those aldermen who voted to
accept his reports and go along
with them—as the TEAM alder-
men did on the Four Seasons
project where I was the only one
who voted against— cannot now
lay the blame on Sutton Brown.
City Council and more
specifically the NPA (and any
aldermen that voted with them)
were to blame.

That is why I voted against
firing Sutton Brown. To me it
seems a shabby way of taking
the blame off the NPA and other

guilty aldermen and placing it on

a civil servant who wascarrying
out their orders. It’s the favor-
ite, even if dishonest, poli-
tician’s way of getting out from
under.

As far as I’m concerned
Sutton Brown should have stay-
ed on. If he should be his actions
prove that he is unwilling or
incapable of carrying out
TEAM decisions, that would be
the time to deal with him. What

the TEAM majority has done is _

PERMANENT SCAR

to find him guilty before heh
committed any wrongful act
that’s something I refuse t
along with.

The guilty ones, Irepeat, we
the NPA majority and thos
TEAM aldermen who we
along with them in adopting
reports prepared by Sutton
Brown on the instructions of
NPA which were against the
interests of the city.

Lahor Federation urges CLC
action on jobless insurance

Noting that the unemploy-
ment insurance system ‘‘is
being continuously under-
mined’’ a special committee of
the B.C. Federation of Labor
submitted a brief to the Cana-
dian Labor Congress urging
immediate action to correct
what the committee called ‘‘ter-
ible injustices.”’

The brief was prepared by the
committee’s chairman, George
Kowbel, on the basis of a hear-
ing held into UIC grievances at-
tended by unions affiliated to
the Federation.

The interrogation system of
benefit control officers was
cited as a major source of
discrimination. Under the pres-
ent system, claimants must
appear before a benefit control
officer—usually a former police
officer or a security agent — to
answer certain questions
regarding his search for employ-
ment. Claimants are denied the
right of having a representative
of their own choice present.

The brief urged that claim-
ants be allowed to have repre-
sentatives present at the inter--
view and have the. right to
counsel before signing any docu
ments.

The brief also demanded the
removal of the employer appeal

,ment of trade unionists ?

clause from the present act. It
stances were cited where em
ployers have used their righto
appeal to have their employee
who were laid off just before
tract negotiations disqualifie
for UIC benefits as a furthe
pressure against wage de
mands. In one case, the brie
pointed out, one employer int
forest industry succeeded |
having 4,000 workers div
qualified despite the fact thi
their claims had been pre
viously accepted by the UIC.

Other proposals put forw
in the brief included the appo

Board of Referees chairme
instead of the present discrill
inatory system where only ell
ployers’ representatives af
appointed; thedeletionfromth
Act of the clause that disqual’
fies claimants until their
day pay is used up; a chang
the waiting period from seve
consecutive days to any seve
days in a 52 week consecuti’
period.

The committee emphasizt
‘its preparedness to assist th
CLC in any action and asked ft
a national conference on t
question of jobless insurant
as well as a lobby to Parili
ment. a