Back

: By MIKE PHILLIPS

TORONTO — The 1,504 delegates of
Ontario’s organized trade union move-
ment had a clear message to pass on to
the top leadership of the 800,000-member
Ontario Federation of Labor at the 27th
annual convention, Nov. 21-24.

Don’t take us for granted. Start back-
ing up our militant policies and rhetoric
with organized mass action with our al-
lies. And, keep this movement united
around these principles and policies,

we've got no time for sleazy attacks on .

our affiliates.

By all accounts it was a unique
convention. For the first time in the fed-
eration’s history the convention was

launched with a key policy paper de-

voted to disarmament and peace.

While scores rose to endorse and criti-
cally support the paper, only two dele-
gates spoke against it and when the vote
was counted an estimated 98 per cent of
the delegates were in favor.

It was another first for the OFL when
its policy paper onjob creation was effec-
tively rejected because the delegates felt
it-was a step backward from previous
policies. It was referred to the resolu-
tions committee by Canadian Union of
Postal ‘Workers Vice-president Bill

. Cheddore. The committee was in-

structed to bring out the 1982 convention
statement on jobs for reaffirmation at this
convention. The paper sparked yet

2 another controversy when the entire

United Auto Workers delegation broke

_ with the OFL leadership and joined with

the forces opposing the inadequate

_ Statement.

The delegates backed the federation
leaders when called upon to endorse mili-
tant, practical steps toward solving the
current depression, with resolutions
demanding the nationalization of the
banks, and key economic sectors. The
convention gladly endorsed a resolution
committing the OFL to the selective use
of ‘‘sit-downs, occupations and other
forms of civil disobedience” in the fight
to force governments to create jobs.

They were enthusiastic about breath-
ing more life into the Federation’s Af-
firmative Action policy by amending the
constitution to add five new, women
vice-presidents to the OFL executive,
and they supported the recommenda-
tions of concurrence with resolutions of
solidarity with the workers of Grenada,
Nicaragua, El Salvador, the Philippines
and South Africa. ;

But, rebuke, rejection and defeat were
in store for policies of retreat in the face
of the crisis and in conflict with pre-
viously adopted programs, such as oc-
curred with the jobs paper. The conven-
tion grew impatient with the resolutions
committee’s refusal to endorse a resolu-
tion calling on the Canadian Labor Con-
gress not to alter its ‘‘present democratic
system of convention representation,
voting and submission of resolutions,”’
because they had to push it through two
referrals and a showdown on the conven-
tion floor before the committee would
bow to the wishes of the vast majority of
delegates.

The convention was absolutely turned
off by the unprincipled attack against the

United Electrical workers (UE), (see

policies with action
_ OFL meet tells leadership

Labor in Action), and what the delegates.
saw as a brazen attempt to revive the
fratricidal tactics of an earlier divisive era
in labor’s history that brought nothing of
value to the workers.

Long lines of delegates streamed be-
hind ‘‘con’’ microphones as the debate
on the Job Creation paper got under way.
Buzz Hargrove, one of two UAW admin-
istrative assistants to the director for
Canada, hammered the statement for
suggesting that- until the advent of the
so-called ‘‘restraint’’ period federal Lib-
eral governments pursued full employ-
ment policies.

The policy of creating unemployment
to fight inflation, the Job Creation paper
maintained, represented a significant re-
versal in one of the major aspects of
Canadian political economy since the
end of World War II; namely the
commitment to full employment.”’

To which Hargrove replied: “‘There’s
never been a full employment policy by
any federal government, there’s been a
policy of planned unemployment.”’

He lashed the paper for ignoring the
unemployed and those whose unem-
ployment insurance benefits are running
out, by not including the demand for ex-
tended UI benefits. The absence of any
kind of proposed industrial strategy was
criticized and he particularly objected to
the paper’s rejection of the demand for
the shorter work week.

The shorter work week, he noted is a
logical response to try and save jobs in
the wake of massive layoffs, and he
promised, ‘‘our union is going for the

TRIBUNE PHOTO — MIKE PHILLIPS

. The entire UAW . delegation

A j
followe
leader Bob White in rejecting the O
executive’s paper on job creation.

shorter work week in 1984 regardless 0
what happens to the economy.”’

UE research director Jim Tutt
itemized the basic flaws in the paper an!
warned that, ‘‘if this paper is passed. 3

-every trade unionist in this room, every

affiliate to this federation will be seri
ously embarrassed.”

He took exception to the paper
reference to ‘‘the all-pervasive factor 0
low levels of education and training’
which supposedly underlie various othet
‘characteristics of the chronicall
unemployed.”’ :

‘The reason we have chronic levels o! |
unemployment is not because workers —
are too young, or because of what geog
raphical part of the country they’re from
or their ethnic background’, Turk said.
‘It isn’t because they’re illiterate, it’S
because there are no jobs!”’ :

One of the dangers the left has to guard against in

_ making estimations and decisions is to substitute wish
for reality. This is particularly true in periods where
victories are few and far between for the working class.

What happened at last week’s Ontario Federation of
Labor Convention saw, in our opinion however, the
shoe on the other foot. It was the top leadership of the
OFL which projected into the convention a mistaken
view of the level of militancy and understanding of the
membership of the Federation and got burned-badly as a
result.

The executive of the OFL went into this convention
gunning for the United Electrical Workers (UE), and
through them the entire left. They were going to teach
the left a lesson. Remarks were thick in the period lead-
ing up to the convention, promising that the left was
going to be measured off. They were going to be put in
their place around such issues as independent labor poli-
tical action. Around quality of work life. Around health
and saftey.

The leadership freely expressed the view that this was
going to be a laid-back convention. A convention where
the delegates would be of a conservative mood. A good
time indeed to settle with a critical left which was de-
manding action, when no possibility of action was in the

| cards. A left demanding a flat rejection of quality of work

life schemes when workers were looking for deals with

| management the executive surmised.

There is little doubt that the OFL leadership had con-

- vinced one another that the working people were not,

and are not prepared for action. It has been precisely on
this foundation that the Federation and its major
affiliates have backed away from any mass actions
against unemployment or wage controls. Having con-
vinced themselves of this “‘reality’’ it required little
- further proof that this convention would be a good time
to ‘bring the left onside” or alternately to isolate it from
the movement.

_ The leadership failed to do either. In fact they serious-
ly weakened their own credibility with the membership

| and wound up splitting their own ranks in the process.

Labor in action

William Stewart

This is not something to be particularly happy about at
a time when we need strong, firm united and militant
leadership in the OFL to fight the upcoming battles. It is,
however, a most encouraging proof of the level of con-
sciousness and segacity of the main cadre of the Ontario
trade union movement. It is also a clear warning to the
top leadership of the OFL that the membership will not
accept red-baiting and left-baiting as a substitute for
militant mass leadership.

One should not paint the top leadership of the OFL
with a single brush. That was made clear in the debate on
the floor where on the critical issue of OFL policy onjobs
and economic policy, members of the Ontario executive
lined up on different sides of the issue. The United Auto

Workers (UAW) considered its differences with the pol- |

icy paper submitted by the executive to be so serious that
they felt forced to line up at an opposition mike and vote
against the paper. Discussions in the corridor indicated
that others in the top leadership considered the jobs
paper quite unacceptable. |

Secretary Treasurer Terry Meagher exposed himself
to anyone who did not already know him, as a right-wing
anti-Communist at this convention. He lost his credibil-
ity with a clear majority of the convention. No one would
make such an accusation of Cliff Pilkey, which is not-to
suggest that the left does not and will not have differences
with him on many issues.

The delegates‘at the convention showed their capacity

to make such distinctions between the leadership. They

made clear their demand that issues be dealt with on their
merits not by smearing and innuendo.

More than anything else however, the delegates to this |

OFL convention gave the lie to the myth spread by the

Attempt to ‘punish’ the left rebuked

leadership in many unions and in the OFL, that there-is
not a mood for a mass fightback and militant action in
Ontario. It is there to some considerable degree in spite
of, and not because of the leadership of the OFL.

We would not have felt very comfortable had we been —
in the OFL leaderships’ shoes when the new Canadian
Union of Public Employees (CUPE) President Jeff Rose
reported to the delegates on the battles in B.C. Rose —
again and again drew from the events in B.C. that work-
ers do not have to take it idly when governments rule
against them. They can act, act together and with others —
who support them, and in support of others. He never |
once mentioned the New Democratic Party but em-
phasized that workers can act and score victories against
governments who act against their interests.

This was a country mile from the solution of the OFL~
leadership to the problems of working people in Ontario. —
Hang on and elect the NDP, was the essence of their
solution. Delegates at the convention, most of whom
were NDP supporters, were given an ‘‘either or’’ solu-
tion by their leadership. Either give the entire political
struggle of the movement over to the NDP or suffer the
continued tyranny of the old-line parties. Not much of an
option indeed. Jeff Rose’s report, however, placed the
question on its feet and for the first time for a long time,
from the platform of the OFL convention, struck a note |
for mass extra-paraliamentary action as the most in-
despensable and most critical aspect of labor political
action. Without that electoral political action remains 4 —
hollow shell.

We can only hope that the leadership of the OFL,
which did not face election at this convention, reflects
wisely on the outcome of the event and comes up wilt |
the conclusion that there is indeed a sentiment for mas$ —
action out there among the membership, and that they
should organize and encourage it. This would surely |
avoid the difficulties they encountered in this convention —
and lead to a powerful united and militant convention 19
1984.

Meanwhile we tilt our hats to the left who did them-
selves proud at this one. +

PACIFIC TRIBUNE—NOVEMBER 30, 1983—Page 6