By ALF
DEWHURST

-S these lines are being writ»

ten, the eyes of all organ-
ized workers in B.C. are turned
upon the lumber industry. Wood-
workers are taking a strike vote.
Will the vote be overwhelmingly
“yes’>? And will the vote be
used? The reason for the more
than passing interest in the lum-
ber negotiations is the well-known
fact that the wages and condi-
tions won, by woodworkers deter-
Mine to a large degree the wages
and conditions of all working

. People in this province.

In 1946, as a result of a general
strike in the industry, woodwork-
€rg won 15 cents an hour and in-
Stituted the principle of the 40-
hour week. In 1947, without a
Stiike, they won 12% cents an
hour and further consolidated the
40-hour week. And in 1948, again
without strike action, a further
18 cents an hour was won.

In those three years woodwork-
ers won a total of 40% cents an
hour: in wage increases and es-
tablished the 40-hour week — a
record to be proud of, The lesson
Of those thie years which must
be thoroughly
these great gains were only made
because of the splendid working
Class solidarity that marked the
1946 general strike in lumber.

understood is:

Now, in 1949, the bosses are
riding high. They are very cocky.
They think that with two unions
in the field the ranks of the work-
ers hopelessly And
vightly or wrongly they think
that the leadership of the IWA
will not fight. That’s why they
are so brazenly going about the

are split.

business of breaking down the
principle of collective bargaining,
which is the essence of the award
of the conciliation board.

That’s the way the employers’
representative on the board, Don-
ald B. McLeod, saw the award
when he interpreted article 4,
Section 2, of the master agree-
ment dealing with yearly wage
revision “This
Provision can and should apply
in the case of any company un-
able to continue operations nd
pay the present scale.”

in these words:

The board went out whole-hog
to break down the principle of
collective bargaining when they
inserted the operators’ demands
into article 11, section 1, of the
agreement .Which deals with
hours of work to make the de-
termination of the Jength of the
Work week a question to be dealt
with by the employer and his em-
ployees,

On the basis of this threat to
the 40-hour week and collective
bargaining the IWA leadership
recommended rejection of the
award. And in a fine demonstra-
tion of rank and file militancy
the IWA membership rejected the
award and instructed their lead-
ers to apply for a strike vote.

On the basis of IWA statements,
both written and oral, it is ap-
parent that if the IWA negotiat-

rors

The woodworkers

can win again

United rank-and-file can smash operators’ scheme to
steal woodworkers’ gains and force them to give a raise

ing committee can secure remoy-
al of the operators’ demand which
has been inserted in the hours of
work clause the agreement would
then be acceptable.

For example, George Mitchell,
IWA district secretary, stated in
a meeting in New Westminster:

“We will not stand for a roll--

back . . .” The inference being,
of course, that last year’s agree-
ment would be acceptable to the
IWA leadership. But is last year’s
agreement good enough for 1949?

There are two clauses in last
year’s agreement which threaten
the hard-won gains of woodwork-
ers, Two clauses which are insep-
arably linked together in the op-
eraitors’ scheme of things to come.
One deals with the hours of work
and the other with wages. The
meaning placed upon these two
clauses determines whose inter-
ests they will further—the oper-
ators’ or the workers’.

There is an old saying, and a
true one, that everything depends
on time, place and conditions.

In former years, clause A, ar
ticle 11, section 1, of the master
agreement, providing that “the
company will have the right to
operate forty-four (44) hours per
week with time and a half after
forty (40) hours,” was interpret-
ed as a provision for emergency
situations.

And article 4, section 2, of the
agreement reading, “The wage
seale attached hereto, as supple-
ment No. 1, is approved by both
parties and may, subject to mut-
ual consent by both parties, be
revised once yearly,” was_inter-
preted to mean upward adjust-
ment of job rates.

These interpretations were fav-

orable to the workers and were
made possible by the strength of

.

the’ organized workers, a boom-
ing market, the demand for men
to fill jobs. ’

Now, in 1949, conditions favor
the bosses’ interpretation of the
wages and hours clauses of the
agreement. These conditions are
a falling market, growing scarcity
of jobs and a serious split in the
ranks of the organized workers.

While operators would prefer
elimination of the union, altogeth-
er in determining the length of
the working week, they will not
view unfavorably last year’s ag-
reement as they will interpret it.

Let’s picture this situation: An
overwhelming “yes” is rolled up
in the strike vote. The operators
“reluctantly” agree in the inter-
of maintaining industrial
peace, to drop their demand for
“employer-employee”

ests

determina-
tion of the working week. And on
the basis of this
from the operators the IWA lead-

“concession”

ership and employers conclude a
master agreement for 1949.

‘Now we fill in the detail. The
signing of the individual contract
between the individual operators
and the local unions, does not

take place simultaneously but one -

at a time. The individual oper-
ator, taking his cue from the em-
ployers’ representative on the con-
ciliation board, Donald B. Mc-
Leod, will say, “The market, as
you know, has gone to pieces,
competition is such that I just

can’t continue to operate and pay,

the present scale. Wages must be
revised downwards or I'll have to
close the plant down.” That’s the
tactic of isolation and division.

Of course the setting for the
operational stage of negotiations
will be carefully prepared and
selected. Once a downward revi-

.

sion has been successfully insti-
tuted in one operation the process
will be extended to others.

Next will come the lengthening
of the work week in the form of
a mutual demand from the oper-
ators and some employees in or-
der to maintain the workers’

take-home pay.

That’s the essence of the boarid’s

award. That’s the meaning of

That’s
why “last year’s agreement” is
not good enough. And if Fadling,
Alsbury, Mitchell and company of
the IWA join with the bosses
and the Labor Relations Board in
accepting “last year’s agreement”
they will be guilty of a sell-out.

“last year’s agreement”.

But operators have made one
serious miscalculation which. will
overturn their applecart. They
are wrong, many times over, in
assuming that the Fadlings, the
Alsburys and the Mitchells are
the union.

The union is those thousands of
rank and file workers who taught
operators a much-needed lesson
in 1946 and who can repeat the
lesson in 1949. And the rank and
file workers still have access to
the same militant leadership they
had in 1946 in the WIUC, which
is a potentially powerful force at
the disposal of woodworkers to
win wage increases and to save
the 40-hour week.

What has happened to the
woodworkers’ original demands?
The demand for 15 cents an hour
increase, the consolidation of the
40-hour week,‘health benefit plan,
paid holidays and union security?

Don’t the workers in the indust-
ry need these demands as much
as they did in April when they
were formulated? Of course they
do. Then why all the defeatist
propaganda being peddled by the
IWA top Officialdom about “last
year’s agreement”? g

Woodworkers need a wage in-
crease. Their demand is for 15
cents an hour across the board.

The operators can pay, as their
balance sheets show. The demand
for 15 cents an hour wage in-
crease should*be raised high. And
woodworkers need to demonstrate

their determination to win their
major demands in the spirit of
1946. The bosses need to be re-
taught a lesson,

So, the ranks of the organized
woodworkers are split. But isn’t
working class unity forged in
struggle around concrete issues
that affect the workers as a
whole? And haven’t the bosses, in
thein arrogance and hatred of the
workers, provided the concrete
issue?

Rank and file workers, regard-
less of union affiliation, can unite
on the job and roll up an over-
whelming “yes” on the strike
vote. WIU and IWA workers can
organize rank and file committees
on a job and area basis to pre-
pare for strike action; to set up
the machinery to solicit and pay
out strike relief. Rank and file
action committees can, with the
capable assistance of the WIUC,
carry a stfike through to a suc-
cessful conclusion.

So, perhaps the top leadership
of the IWA has conspired with
the bosses to sell the workers
down the river. And didn’t the
bosses have Fadling, Alsbury and
Mitchell in 1946, 1947 and 1948?
And didn’t these gentlemen have
to go along with the workers
then? Of course they did. And
they will go along again.

And haven’t the workers still
got their Pritchetts, their Berg-
rens and their Dalskogs who led
them in their victorious struggle
of 1946 and their negotiations in
1947 and 1948? Certainly they
have. And they will lead and
spark the drive'in 1949 to win
wage increases and save the 40-
hour week.

The need of the hour is bold,
decisive leadership coupled with
militant rank and file action.
There is no room for defeatism,
passivity or illusions. It is time to
attack. Vote strike! Prepare for
strike! And if necessary—strike!

PACIFIC TRIBUNE — SEPTEMBER 9, 1949 — PAGE 5