By RAE MURPHY The whole logic, or if you will, the philosophical fabric of the Rand Commission report is based upon a society that doesn’t exist. This society is es- sentially split into three parts, @ minority of employers (euphe- mistically referred to as man- agement) another minority grouping of workers, and a majority of the population (called The Public). “The Public” exists in a semi- conscious state buffeted be- tween the selfish interests of “management” and the unions. “The Public” doesn’t work for wages, nor does it employ labor, it merely consumes. It is the Passive and innocent bystander whose interests are threatened ‘by the titanic struggle for power by two more or less balanced minority groups in society, the workers and the employers. It flows from this thesis that government, the courts, and the whole apparatus of state re- flects arid is a part of this mas- sive group who stand beside the economic and social battles that are joined by the workers and employers. The government is an innocent bystander, whose role is to protect the public by enacting legislative controls on the major protagonists, so that their selfish struggle does not lead to general social anarchy. Rand deals with the “prob- lem of conflicting interests,” between the workers and em- ployers by noting the “emerg- ence of asserted claims by Masses of men and women to a greater sharing of what the more successful of their fellows look upon as the prizes of life. Their class furnishes the labor for the achievements of this industrial age. The style they seek to follow is set for them by the more successful. It is this contest of satisfying de- sires that presents today in our communities one of the most, if not the most, intractable of society’s problems. The distri- bution of the -total available goods and services has become an issue that goes to the roots of democratic society; it is not an economic issue only; it in- volves social and political fac- tors of the highest importance. Thus Rand after many _ tor- turous and often contradictory references to the balance of power between labor and man- agement, (for example he often alludes to the tremendous. fin- ancial and political might of the organized labor movement with- out citing one concrete exam- ple, and later in his recommen- dations he lists a paragraph which indicates the degree of restrictive legislation which al- ready hampers the struggle of the labor movement against the employers), comes down with his essential thesis that the strike weapon must either be abolished or restricted by my- riad of laws and regulations, which in any case can be used at the discretion of the govern- ment or courts. Even leaving aside the fiction of the third element of our so- ciety—the public, which neither works nor owns for a living, there are two other fallacies in Rand’s philosophy. (A) The organized trade union movement is on an equal foot- ing with the bosses. (B) The government is and has been a neutral party in dis- putes between labor and em- ployers. : However, before we leave the “Public,” if anyone can define this category of society, would’ they also indicate the require- ments or rather the state of. grace one requires to enter this blissful majority. Dual power, or how poor little General Motors withstands the mighty financial and organiza- tional assaults of its workers. If any worker is the least bit unclear about who is boss when he enters the factory, the situ- ation is cleared up immediately. Any rights that workers do have now on the job, grievance . procedures, seniority rights, as well as union recognition have been won after bitter struggle, nor have they been won for all time because there is the con- stant pressure to eat away at gains that have been estab- lished. Any rights that workers have are spelled out and in spe- cific terms, anything that is un- spoken falls under the joker clause in any and every union contract entitled Management Rights. Here we are speaking only of PACIFIC TRIBUNE—OCTOBER 4, 1968—Page 4 workers in highly unionized areas of the economy and it goes without saying that the great majority of workers who are presently unorganized do not even possess these rights. There is no such thing as de- mocracy, or equal rights be- tween management and labor in matters pertaining to private industry. always beating up on bosses just because they cross a picket line. The idea that that govern- ment and state is impartial in matters of labor relations is dis- proved right at the beginning of Rand’s report when he in a few paragraphs recites the long and bitter struggle that labor has undergone to win even the ~ for recognition and for its rights in dealing with the em ployers has been a struggle i? the plants, on the picket lines; in the jails and in the courts: but it has also been a politi fight to make laws better all to create legislation that woul legalize victories already won. The point we wish to argue § not that legislative political a& — e@ What union has a say in any of the community or social relations of a company—or the air that is polluted by the stacks or the waste that is pumped into the rivers and lakes? When one thinks about: it, these two examples plus many more are vital to the interests of the workers, but they have no more to say over these things than they have over layoffs. The relationship of the work- er to his employer is summed up in the poetry of the labor song—Solidarity Forever. ‘“With- out our brain and muscle not a single wheel can turn”; This is true, and this is the well-spring of the strength of the working class, and to the degree this is realized and acted upon, to the same degree are the rights of labor respected. However, it is equally important to know that in Canada the working-class may turn the wheels but if doesn’t own them. This. salient fact of life determines who has .power. The idea of dual power in Canada is.nonsense and Jus- tice Rand knows it. If there was any doubt we wouldn’t be hir- ing a Judge to tell us. The government is a neutral party, or why are the cops right to organize. The whole system of labor law: that has evolved since the industrial re- volution has reflected the prin- ciple of our society that private property is the only sacred idol we worship. The very idea that workers would organize is seen as an affront to this God. This concept finds itself reflec- ted in the Master and Servants Act and every other piece of legislation in the field. Recently the Chrysler Corpo- ration announced an increase in price of its new models. There was no conciliation board, no cooling off period, no supervised vote among the board of direc- tors, and no Justice Rand around to propose an Industrial Tribunal. Even the sacred name of the public was not invoked. It would appear that the vital interest of the public is only in regard to the demands of the workers and a few bucks here .or there on the price of a car means nothing, the only: event that causes social anarchy is a few cents more in the pay packet of a Chrysler worker. And so it goes on and on, over and over, etcetera and so forth. But there is another side to this question which should not be lost sight of..Labor’s fight —CARLESS, UE News tion is meaningless.’ Far from it. These struggles assume more of an important, decisive role, as the trade union movement grows in strength and the prob- lems of the social and tech- nological changes assume widet dimensions. The only point we wish to make is that it is a fallacy to consider the laws, government and courts as neutral bodies floating in a social and econo- mic vacuum as Rand suggests. However the first step in forc- ing governmental action on the side of the labor movement 1S to understand the nature of the beast. The laws of the land and the character of the men who write and enforce them are con- ditioned by political reality and it is the independent political activity of the labor movement that can move the laws that will reflect the wishes of the labor movement. The little lady with the blindfold that holds the scale of justice twitches her nose every once in a while to see which way the wind is blow- ‘ing, just as she squints over her blindfold now and again to see | who is pushing. (Next which way—Rand or Freed- man, and how Rand can be de- © feated.) v