Fishing’ for ‘blame’

Qn Saturday last ‘The Pro-
vince” went “fishing”. Editorially
that is. The current UF&AWU
strike has the Old Lady all in a
dither. Casting herself in the role
of “the public” she sees everything
“clouded”; the “fish must be

caught when they are in our |

waters” (an obvious deduction),
_ and nobody seems to know just.
who is to “blame” for not going
fishing? :
In this at least ‘““The Province”
_makes a yeoman effort, by infer-
ence at least, to hang the “blame”’
on the union as she trots out the
old well - seasoned bait of “a
_ thorough investigation by some
impartial expert”?

By the time that “impartial ex-
pert” gets going the fish won’t be
around, but the packers will, as
any landlubber knows who pays

top beefsteak prices for a tin of
pink salmon from the “550,000
cases” still in company ware-
houses, and about which the Old
Lady poses an astonished “Why?”

If such an “expert” were truly
“impartial” the problem could be

solved in no time flat. Simply by

\narrowing the marginal gap be-
tween what the fisherman gets

“(who assumes all the risks), by con-.

siderably upping fish prices at the
“pnoint of production” on the sea-
son catch; and contrary-wise, by
considerably reducing the high
prices and super-profits of the
organized packers. Then every-
body would benefit, and the Old
Lady’s querulous “why?” about
those half-a-million or more un-
sold cases of pinks would be no
load on her mind at all when she
goes “fishing’’?

Editorial comment...

ANY “concession” by Wash-
ington to partially or totally “ex-
empt” U.S. investment in Canada
_ from its foreign investments tax
measure is more akin to political
blackmail than concern for the
economic destiny of a highly mort-
gaged “neighbor.”
Its immediate effect was aimed
at destroying the confidence of
Canadians in their own country
_ of underminging the growing idea
of Canadian independence; of ex-
_ tracting a plaintive howl from Can-
ada’s financial plunderbund,
_ “please don’t do this to us. Its only
the Reds who talk about independ-
ence. We just can’t get along with-
out your dollars, and we’re ready
as always to give you Canada in
return”?

_ The same plunderbund who
coaxed Canada’s finance minister
_ Walter Gordon out on his budget-
ary “take-over tax on American
investment springboard, t hen
speedily yanked him back when
they found it had a strong U. S.
recoil?

But for Canadians generally,
_ what has been “won” by Wash-
ington’s “concession” would have
been much better in the long run
had it been irrevocably “lost.”
Then at least we could have re-
tained our dignity and self-respect,
_ both essential to achieving inde-

*

British police authorities report
a substantial increase in crime dur-
ing the past year. London’s Metro-
politan Police report an all-time
high for 1962 and still rising. And
that probably doesn’t include the
upward crime curve in Tory gov-
ernment circles, a la Profumo, etc.

In the U.S.A. according to FBI
director J. Edgar Hoover 1962
rolled up a grand score of four
crimes a minute, reaching a grand

total of over two million. These

include ‘“‘a murder every hour, a
rape every 32 minutes, an assault
every four minutes, a robbery
every six minutes, a burglarly
every 35 seconds, a larceny every
minute (petty or grand), and a car
theft every 90 secon

EDITORIAL PAGE *

A feed, ora fight?

A recent visitor in Vancouver,
New York Building Service Em-
ployees’ Union president Tom
Shortman gave out with some du-
bious ideas relative to “Bill 42”,
which prohibits B.C. trade union-
ists from contributing union funds
to the NDP.

Obviously a devotee of the old
Gompers school of “rewarding
your friends and punishing your
enemies” by giving union support
to whichever party, Republican or
Democrat puts on the best show
of being “labor’s friends,’ Mr.
Short man relates how these par-
ties put the ding on U.S. unions for
financial support. |

The technique is simple; just a
few “invitations” to a select num-
ber of union brass to the specified
party banquet, at anything from
one hundred to one thousand dol-
lars a plate. And in order to “keep

on the right side” (?) of either

party to “ensure favorable labor
legislation,” the big union brass
feel “obligated” to attend—with
the union treasury paying the shot.

President Shortman says “we're
not happy about it” but the Taft-
Hartley law makes it “‘illegal”’ to
contribute directly. The president
has a solution; the T-H should be
strengthened to include prohibi-
tion of the banquet squeeze tech-
nique? A more simple “solution”
would be to return the “invita-

- tion” with appropriate “thanks’’?

In the first place why should
any trade union anywhere “contri-
bute’ directly or indirectly to
Democrat or Republican parties,
to Tory, Liberal or Socred—even
with a posh dinner thrown in for
the union brass at rank-and-file
expense? ©

Secondly, Mr. Shortman is
grossly in error when he equivo-
cates his Republican and Demo-
crat banquet squeeze with union
contributions in Canada to the
NDP (prohibited in B.C. by Soc-
red Bill 42).

With all its manifold shortcom-
ings, the NDP has its origin in the
desire of Canadian labor for its
own independent political action
and representation in parliament;
a desire well nurtured in Canada
by three-quarters of a century of
Tory, Liberal (and latterly) Socred
betrayal of labor’s interests. There
is just no comparison. The old-line
banquet “touch” engenders an al-
ready well-developed class collab-
orationist ideology of union buro-
crats, at heavy cost to rank-and-
file members: The other, Bill 42,
an arrogant invasion of elementary
union rights, prohibits unions from
contributing to a political party of
their own creation and choice.

_ Probably Mr. Shortman’s views
on more restrictive legislation and
other matters stem from a com-
mon forgetfulness, so typical of
many of his countrymen when
orating in Canada?

They forget that, happily, this
is not as yet the “51st state” of the
U.S.A.

On one score however Canadian
unionists can be in full agreement
with Mr. Shortman. As in the
U.S.A. we in Canada have plenty

of “political corruption... much
as in the 1920’s’. That’s why Can-
adian rank-and-file unionists have
a growing preference for the NDP

rather than Tory, Liberal or Soc-
red “plate” banquets and prom-
ises. That’s why they demand an

end to “Bill 42.”

“Paci ic Trou

— TOM McEWEN

_ Associate Rat dion (MAURICE RUSE
Business Mgr.—OXANA BIGELOW
- Published

weekly at:
— & — 426 Main Street
Vancouver 4, B.C.
Fhone MUtual 5-5288
Subscription Rates:

Canadian and Commonwealth coun-
$4.00 one

_tries (except Australia):

‘year. Australia, United States and
all other countries: $5.00 one year

“Authorized as second class mail by
Post Office Senertnent, Ottawe

.

UST a few days ago Vancouver's
J eminent jurist. Mr. Justice T. C.
Norris tabled his one-man _ royal
commission report to the Pearson
vevernment on the operation of the
Seaiarers’ International Union and
its top rim in
Banks.
Long notorious for his arti-labor
‘and reactionary views, Mr. Justice
Norris went far beyond the “terms
of reference” of his commission by
branding othcr unions and union
leaders as being “beyond the pa’?”
of the law in union stewardship,
Jimmy Hoffa. internationa! Presi-
dent of the Teamsters Union drew
a package of unwarranted censure
in the Norris suinmation.
The Canada Steamship  Liaes
(CSL) is equally scoved in the coin-
mission report for “failure to stand
out against his (Bank’s) unlawful
acts, ete ae
Described as a “‘awless man,”
many choice (and apt) adjectives
are used to describe Banks’ ‘“‘law-
lessness’ in union administration.
Since Communist and non-Com-
munist trade unionists have been

saying much the same thing in less.

Canada, Hal C..-

served as an

‘legal’ language for
wonders at the need of a royal
commission altogether to describe

what was aircady too long obvi-
ous?
However, without holding any

briefs for Hal C. Banks, there are
some salicnt points which our
eminent jurist conveniently forgot
or lightly skipped over; points
which no trade unionist can afford
to forge’, both.as to the origin of
Banks and the SIU in Canada, and
the “solution” now recommended
in the Norris report — to put a
“government trustecship’ over all
seamen’s unions?

The Banks-SIU job was to smash |

-a legitimate Canadian union, the
Canadian Seamens Union (CSU) by
every illegal and lawless
possible including the combined
violence of SIU goons, supported
by the state forces of the RCMP
“and the courts. To smash a union
that had won the praises of its
own and foreign governments for
its heroic war cffort in a proud
Canadian Merchant Marine; a
union that had established wove
standards and conditions whieii
inspiring objective
pattern for seamen under all flags.

Those who care to > browse
through old newspaper files of that

era will find, inter aliaas the laws-.

ers say, the “man of law” and the
‘Jawless” man now so branded, in
complete accord on this govern-
ment - company - CCL - SIU -

_ RCMP destruction of the CSU.

years, one —

tion, one
our eminent jurror’s
tions,”

administration and affairs of all
seamcn’s
ultimately, of course, all unions in

crossing their promoters. This dan-
ger is eliminated by government
hand-picked union bosses. Eventu-

means —

vised.” To climinate his

Claude Jodoin “approves” of ie
Norris “trusteeship™ but please,
only for the SIU, not for the res:
of us. ‘This high-priced exeuse for
a labor ‘leader’ hasn’t yet learned
that by putting a “legal” rope
around a brother's neck, even

‘Brother Hal Banks’,

Now we see the “lawful” and
much-sought: after union wrecker
of yesterday and the “lawless”’ man
of today is the product of the same
social (class. Ed.) forces, which
praised his efforts yesterday—and
today blasts. him as somcthing to
be handled with tongs—to threaten
other uniexs with?

To double-check on this conten-
needs go no further than
“recommenda-
which call for a “govern-
ment trusteeship” to supervise the

unions in Canada. And
Canada.
Gangsturs have a habit of double-

ally so is the union thus “supe
‘Jawless”
Mr. Banks, Mr. Norris would elim-
inate the historic indeperdence of.
trade unions, and transform them
into “corporate” underlakers for
their own. burial?

Yo top it ,off. CLC - president

his own is in
danger of being stretched, Which,
to put it briefly, is the aim of the
Norris report.

sol 26’ estos

=i