|

ouble Trouble

‘Reject blackmail
of gas producers’

Continued from pg. 1

that it boost the price to producers
by an additional 15 cents a
thousand cubic feet for old gas,
that is gas on stream on or before
No. 1, 1974. The present price will
be upped to 35 cents — an increase
of 75 per cent.

New gas, or gas brought into.
1974, .

production after Nov. 1,
would go up 20 cents from an
average current price of 35 cents,
bringing the price to 55 cents a
thousand cubic feet — an increase
of 57 per cent. To pay these higher
prices, the Energy Commission
report says that rates to con-
sumers would have to be increased
by 18 per cent. This, says Andrew
Thompson, chairman of. the
commission, will encourage more
exploration. A. M. McIntosh,
senior vice-president of Pacific
Petroleums, said the proposals
were “encouraging.”’ President of
Pacific said if the government
action is prompt and favorable, his
company will go ahead with

production.

Attorney-general Alex Mac-
donald said the government’s
decision will be made by the end of
the month. Commenting on the
report from St. John’s,
Newfoundland, where he was
attending the premiers’ con-
ference, premier Dave Barrett
said his government will be unable
to keep its commitment made a
few months ago to hold the line on
natural gas charges. These
statements indicate a danger that
the NDP government may
surrender to the gas companies
and adopt the recommendations.

Completely ignored in
Energy Commission’s report by
the media and all business
columnists is the admission that

the .

the report represents a surrender
to the blackmail tactics of the gas
and oil companies. As justification
for recommending sweeping price
increases to the companies, the
report makes this significant
statement: :

“The present level of activity is
low because the producing com-

panies have, in effect, gone on

strike against the current pricing
arrangements.”

When workers go on strike for a
decent wage there is no end to
vituperation by the big business
press. But, here, when the gas
monopolies go on strike to force
more profits out of the public, the
capitalist media hail the report as
statesmanlike. Here we see the two
standards of the big business
media. :

If the NDP government
surrenders to this blackmail, it
won’t stop there. The corporate
interests will see it as a big victory,
and pressure tactics will be
stepped up all the way down the
line for concessions from the
government.

Last January and February the
Tribune warned about this
situation in a series of editorials,
and urged the government not: to
surrender to the blackmail tactics
of the gas and oil companies. We
called on the government to take

‘over the entire natural gas in-

dustry, including production and
distribution, and remove the profit
motive from this important utility
serving the public. This is still the
only way forward for the NDP
government. It should reject the
recommendations of the B.C.
Energy Commission report and
move immediately to nationalize
the industry to protect the public’s
interests.

Ottawa.

HOW SWEET IT IS...

How does the B.C. Sugar Refinery explain the fact that
while U.S. sugar companies are reducing their prices, the
B.C. company is increasing theirs?

On August 13 B.C. Sugar raised the wholesale price of
sugar to $29.70 for 100 pounds. Only a month ago it was
$24.10. This week two of the largest sugar companies in the
U.S., Amstar Corp., and Sucrest Corp., cut their price by 70
cents, bringing it to $25.15 per 100 pounds.

Since the price of sugar is set internationally, often fixed
by large international cartels such as those now boosting
the price of coffee, how does B.C. Sugar explain the direct
opposite trends in sugar prices between the U.S. and B.C.?
_ The obvious answer is that B.C. Sugar, being a monopoly
in Western Canada, can damn well do as it pleases. And
that’s exactly what it is doing without any interference from

Sugar, how sweet it is — for the profiteers!

‘B.C. Sugar like robber |
barons of 19th century’|

Despite being locked out for
more than 10 weeks, the workers at
the B.C. Sugar Refinery are more

firm than ever in their struggle to.

win a decent wage from their
monopolistic employer. The 260
workers, members of the Retail,
Wholesale and Department Store
Union, were locked out by B.C.
Sugar on June 6 following a 95 per
cent strike vote and overwhelming

rejection of the company’s last:

wage offer.

The lockout came at a time when
B.C. Sugar, the only sugar refinery
in the province, and the owner of
all four western Canadian sugar
refineries, was preparing to
release their financial statement
which showed profits of $93.4
million for the six months ending
March 31. These figures were not
missed by the pickets at the
refinery who told the Tribune last
week that ‘“‘there’s no question
about it, they (B.C. Sugar) can
afford to pay us what we're asking,
and hardly feel it.”

The union is seeking wage parity
with MacDonald’s Consolidated,
the wholesale arm of Safeway. In
the words of one of the picketers,
this would mean a “substantial
increase.’’ The union’s contention
is that B.C. Sugar is an integral
part of the food industry, and must
be prepared to pay wages which
are consistent with the food in-
dustry. It is notable that B.C.
Sugar does not hesitate to set
prices consistent with the food
industry, and are, in fact, a leader
in the prices spiral, having an-
nounced yet another price increase
two weeks ago.

The latest price hike cannot be
attributed to rising labor costs,
which have remained constant for
well over a year now, or higher raw
sugar prices which have stabilized
at 26 cents per pound, down from a
high of 65 cents last year. The only
reason for the price hike is B.C.
Sugar’s drive to squeeze as much
as possible in profits from the
consumer.

The arrogance of B.C. Sugar,
and their frequent price hikes is
reminiscent of the robber barons of
the 19th century. Apparently this
attitude from the past extends to
their dealings with the workers in
the refinery. Darrell Craig, an
RWDSU picket captain, told the
Tribune last month that the
company ‘has a 19th century
outlook on the treatment. of its
employees” which has led to
demands for improvement in the
working conditions at the refinery.
The pickets have described the
refinery as ‘‘something right out of
Charles Dickens’ including the
architecture of the building itself.

With the dispute continuing there
has been no indication from B.C.
Sugar that they are prepared to
resume negotiations, even though
the B.C. Federation of Labor has
declared all of its products “‘hot.”
The products named were B.C.
Sugar, Roger’s syrup, Manitoba
Sugar, Alberta Sugar, and other
products from _ its — prairie
operations.

With the hot edict, the present
situation has B.C. Sugar com-
pletely closed down, with sugar for
the local retail outlets being im-
ported from Hawaii or California,
and being sold at a competitive
price, even though the handling
costs are much higher. Again,
this points to unchecked
profiteering on the part of B.C.
Sugar.

Last week’s Tribune pointed out
that Beryl Plumptre, chairman of
the Food Prices Review Board,
had finally wakened to the fact that

‘

B.C. Sugar was operating a
“virtual monopoly”? in Western
Canada, and demanded some
-action to protect consumers from
the corporate greed of the com-
pany. It is this same corporate
greed which has brought on the
lockout of the sugar workers, and it
has become clear that B.C. Sugar
is involved with all of the other
giant corporations in their multi-
pronged assault on the working
people of this province, through
both their blatant profiteering, and

their efforts to freeze the wages]
their employees. .

This is the blueprint of the 1g?
wing offensive in B.C., a4
conducted under the direction]
the B.C. Employers Council, wh
has the lockout tactic cropping 4
in contract dispute after conti]
dispute. . a

To the workers at B.C. Sugar, |
situation is closer at hand. 74
have to force’a liveable wage
B.C.. Sugar, simply to be able
buy the goods that they prod

a
THE TERRIFIC EXCITEMENT [S _-

GULEKCAabb

a

es

Rollerball branded |
as anti-social film |

There have been many reviews
of ‘Rollerball,’ with as many
interpretations. Capitalist media
have criticized the movie because
it diluted the superlative technical
manipulation of violence and
emotion with a feeble attempt to
introduce social consciousness.

Radical publications have

‘tended to attack it as a “‘liberal’’

apology in the face of the people’s
growing awareness of the dangers
of corporate dominance over their
lives.

_My impression, after seeing the
film, was that the major press
reviewers completely missed the.
thrust of ‘‘Rollerball,’ and that
radical reviewers totally under-
estimated the dangerous im-
plications of the increasingly
controversial film.

‘Rollerball’? represents far
more than a traditional Hollywood
exploitation hype. It’s an
ideological statement that unites
two basically reactionary theses —
the concept of the welfare state,
pushed so strongly in the mid-60’s
and early 70’s, and the concept of
the individual which goes beyond
sanguine existentialism, into the
arms of Ayn Rand and Nietzche.

The film is implicitly anti-social,
anti-human, and anti-socialist. Its
reactionary message is disguised
by its reference to modern
estrangement under capitalism,
the growing power ‘of monopoly,
and the incorrect but somewhat
prevalent fears . today of
technology and its growing in--.
fluence on the world and the
people. :

But within this scenario, director
Norman Jewison portrays the
people as impassive zombies to be
directed, manipulated, and even
“comforted”? away from struggle
and conscious social action.

Bourgeois social scientists — at

- PACIFIC TRIBUNE—AUGUST 29, 1975—Pa

tivity in the future to the game

Ml
least when I was going to colleg® 4
in their attempts to revise ©},
bankrupt intellectual defense 4,
the capitalist system, would P0})
the future of the U.S. as a “well
state” where everyone was t@*f

care of. They likened human * '

the Coliseum in ancient Ro
They spoke often of the Christ!
and the Lions concept, wher
satiated population is contra!
through the ‘‘games.”’
Jewison updates the Coliseu™
grand fashion. :
And who is Jewison’s b@
Jonathan E. (played by Ja"
Caan)? He comes across a5. |:

“overman’? out of a Niel
novel. He’s the greatest hero
games, whose 13 murders (bef
the finale) in competition pla
him-in the Hall of Fame, wi
main struggle is between “com!
and freedom.”

And what is the crime W
places him in jeopardy with
corporate bosses — he, not
corporate heads, is becominé
prolific writer on the blank p#
of the masses. Society,
capitalist and socialist, Jew!
says, has as its key task the 5")
pression of the individual.

The individual’s key fight |}
freedom then, as ‘“‘Rollerb4
insidiously points out, is the
against society, any society. ’
this task is not the task of
many, but of one great leader, ©
alone has not been co-opted, W
strength and ability to be

“biggest dog in a dog-eat-dog woh}
brings with him a_natl
leadership. Ayn Rand would hé
been proud.

—MARK AL
—People’s