MARITIME UNIONS CALL ON OTTAWA:

“Adopt 20 plan for port growth’

A call for a 20-year plan for the development of the Pot
of Vancouver was made last week in a brief to a

CLC and CUPE should resolve
difference in labor's interest

The Canadian Union of Public
Employees was born out of a
merger between two unions in
September, 1963, the culmination
of seven years of negotiations
between two affiliates of the
Canadian Labor Congress which
itself was created in 1956 by- the
merger of two labor congresses>in
Canada.

The two unions which together
made up CUPE had originally been
separate affiliates of the old Trades
and Labor Congress of Canada and
the Canadian Congress of Labor. In
retrospect, it is obvious that the
merger of the two labor centres
facilitated the creation of CUPE.

At its founding convention,
CUPE had a membership of
almost 77,000 organized into some
517 locals. Today it has some 182,-
000 members in almost 1000 locals.
The federal labor report lists
CUPE as second only to the United
Steelworkers in membership (157,-
919 members as against 165,055 for
steel). When the 1973 report comes
out -next year, CUPE could be
number one.

The growth of CUPE as a purely
Canadian union of public
employees at the municipal and
provincial level is almost parallell-
ed by the growth of the Public Ser-
vice Alliance of Canada (PSAC)
with a reported current
membership of 140,000 made up of
federal government employees in
component units.

Thus the open speculation that
CUPE may pull out of the CLC at
‘the CUPE convention in
November and be followed by the
PSAC has caused serious concern
in union circles particularly among
those who have consistently fought
for an autonomous trade union
movement based on an all-
inclusivé Canadian Labor
Congress.

In 1972, there were 2,370,600
trade union members in Canada of
whom 1,724,957 or 72.8% were in
the CLC. Of the 530,000-odd
members of Canadian unions in the
CLC, 287,571 belonged to CUPE or
_PSAC. If these two unions leave

= LABOR COMMENT =:
the Congress, the Canadian content
and the thrust for Canadian
autonomy within the CLC will be
greatly weakened.

There is open speculation in the
press that if these unions walk out
of the CLC, they may be followed
by the 30,000-member Canadian
Brotherhood of Railway Transport
and General Workers, another
purely Canadian union with’ its
main base in the CN railway. Some
of those who advocate a mass
walkout from the CLC are
speculating that, if such an exodus
occurs, the new group will make
alliances with anyunion that has an
axe to grind and is willing to fight
the Congress whether it’s the
Teamsters, the Council of Cana-
dian Unions, the United Auto
Workers or — the devil himself.

Obviously, this possibility of.split
does not arise from any deep-going

division over principles or as a_

result of powerful mass
movements of workers coming into
collision with the form and struc-
ture of the labor congress as was
the case when the Committee for
Industrial Organization was form-
ed in the U.S. in the thirties when
the executive of the AFL would not
go along with organizing mass
production workers into industrial

_unions. This American division led

to the formation of the Canadian
Congress of Labor in 1940 from a
merger of the All-Canadian
Congress of Labor and CIO unions
expelled from the TLC.

Those who glibly say that com-
petition is good for the trade union-
movement and that the creation of
a new centre at this time will in-
vigorate the movement are
mechanically comparing the
current situation with what happen-
ed in the thirties and early forties.
Can we expect that two unions like

‘CUPE and PSAC, which would be

the main components of a new cen-
tre would strike out on a bold anti-
monopoly course, organize the un-
organized who constitute the ma-
jority of the work force and project
bold social and political policies
designed to advance the working

class on the basis of class struggle
policies?

The record of the leadership of
these two unions, nationally and in
most parts of Canada, and the com-
position of the membership and
their relationship to the economy
of the country does not add up to
such a prospect.

What is the quarrel between the
leadership of CUPE and the CLC?
Is it over fundamental differences?
Is it the result of two opposing
perspectives for the trade union
movement?

Certainly not! In 1967, CUPE
was given a letter spelling out its
jurisdiction. That jurisdiction in-
cluded municipal, school board
and provincial government
employees with the exception of
provincial government employees
in B.C. who were directly affiliated
to the CLC. Now the CLC has taken
into direct affiliation some 42,000
provincial government employees
in Alberta, Prince Edward Island
and Newfoundland because these
groups refused to come in through
CUPE.

Their reasons for not joining
CUPE are a reflection of their
backwardness and conservatism.
But be this as it may, the fact
remains that the leadership of
CUPE would have no basic quarrel
with the CLC leadership and its
current policies if that leadership
would refuse to admit provincial
government employees into the
Congress unless they came through
CUPE.

All this raises one question: do
we want another serious split in
the trade union movement over
such a narrow jurisdictional issue?
If CUPE pulls out of the CLC, it
will not bring the provincial
government employees any closer
to that union. Canadian unions like
CUPE and PSAC should mobolize
maximum delegations to the: next
CLC convention in May and lead

the fight, for policies that will:

strengthen and renovate the trade
union movement.
Significantly, it is where CUPE
See CLC-CUPE, pg. 12

Minister Jean Marchand in a brief adopted by the Pacilit
Coast Maritime Council representing Canadian Lab0!}
Congress (CIC) unions directly engaged in port activities

The extensive brief, adopted by
the Council Wednesday,
September 26, says that Canada,
and particularly Vancouver, should
and will benefit from the world
trend towards detente and in-
creased trade between socialist and

capitalist countries.

It points out, however, that if the
Vancouver port is to be in a posi-
tion to take advantage of the new
trend it will have ‘‘to provide the
most modern loading and un-
loading facilities.” Drawing atten-
tion to the competition from Seat-
tle and other U.S. West Coast
ports, the brief says ‘‘we need a
forward looking pattern of growth
that includes continual expansion
and change.”

The key question, says the brief,
is in whose interests will the port
be developed — the people or
narrow, profit-seeking big business
interests? It charges that until now
development has been designed to
serve private interests, and often
these interests have been foreign
controlled.

As proof of its charge the brief
says that until 1968 it was National
Harbors Board policy in Vancouver
that facilities owned by it be
operated by it. Since then, in a
refersal of policy, the NHB has
turned over its facilities to private
interests such as Empire stevedor-
ing and Casco. It says that
arrangements have been made by
the NHB to sell the container crane
at Centennial Pier to Empire
Stevedoring, and that the NHB has
announced that when the new con-

tainer dock next to Lapointe. Pier.

(Vanterm) is completed it ‘‘will be
leased to a private operator.”

“It is clear that Ottawa’s policy
now is to build port facilities with
public money and then lease these
facilities to private interests,” says
the brief, charging that this ‘‘is a
misue of public funds in that it is a
gift of public funds to business in-
terests that now don’t have to put
up their own funds to build
facilities.

“In our view all publicly built
and publicly owned facilities on the
waterfront should be publicly
operated in the public interests
with profits set aside for further
port development.”

The brief says that Vancouver is
losing business to Seattle for at
least two reasons: the lack of cargo
facilities; and discriminatory rates
practiced against Vancouver by the
shipping interests.

The CLC Maritime Council con-

_ ae

-e A 20-year plan for the develo

{
cludes its brief with a summary ®
12 major points:

ment of the Port of Vancouwe :
with the public involved in in! {
and decision-making. {
e A new type of Port Administi |
tion shared equally by lab
business interests concelf
with shipping, and the varid®
levels of government.
° Publicly owned facilities sh
be publicly operated.
Ottawa should act to end the dis
criminatory practices of fort
shipping lines against the Port® |
Vancouver. a
e The national railways shoul’ |
cease granting privileged lowe}
rates (known as overland ©), |
mon point) to cargo comin
Canada via foreign ports sue

Seattle.
Canadian exports should

through Canadian ports a”
ports destined for Canada si
come in through Canadian P? , of
Build a new, large dry

pat!

oil ;

facility.
Build a Canadian Mere),
Marine through a Crow#
oration. 0
Rene. all coastwise trade
Canadian registere
Canadian-manned ships. in
Build a new passenger ter™ m ot |
Stop any further rival cil
croachment by commer (
developers on the water{ton id
The brief says that labor, aN
operates all the facilities © on a
waterfront and comprises the Y wl
majority of the population, Al
have a decisive say in any 4 and {
plans and projects.”
Making a strong case for 4 a
dian Merchant Marine, the # mg
brief says that “‘the failure © {
government to act is due ™ poll
pressure of vested interests ? ant!
domestic and foreign, who W ast
keep Canada out of the wor 5
ping business. As far as WE nee
cerned this failure to put th wy)
of Canada and its people # sesh
betrayal of the national 1” nt 1

fabulous profits.

period ending July 31.

July 31.

Real estate profits uP

epi
Real estate companies in B.C. are continuing to 1

Last. weekend Wall & Redekop Corp., one of the bi
volume of real estate sales, reported that its profits rose by AP lk
cent in the six months ending July 31, 1973. y
It was followed a few days later by Dunhill pevelOis
Corp., a company which is hevily engaged in the condo ol |
field, reported net profit rise of 300 percent for the nine \

i

Last week Block Bros. reported that its profits had ni

the recent period. And before them Dawson Developme? nt
that its profits increased five-fold in the nine month pe!’

\5

iod e”

See oe ee Se oe eR 4D BR 48s BpQ , ve wae Le a ee ee Fe Te MA, By BB Be

1 RAGIFIC TRIYNE araEIAY, PIPERS ATS AGE 10