Parley demand
harming labor

VICTORIA, B.C.

The harm done to the interests of organized labor by the insist-
ence of the labor conference’s right-wing leadership on pressing its
demand for complete withdrawal of the Bennett government’s new
Labor Relations Act is apparent as Bill 28 comes before the legisla-

ture for second reading.

Had the joint conference of the
B.C. Federation of Labor (CCL),
B.C. Trade Union Congress (TLC)
and Standard Railway Labor Joint
Legislative Committee determin-

-ed what amendments were need-
-ed to remove the most objection-

able features of Bill 28, as some
delegates demanded, and pressed
its amendments on the cabinet
and MLAs, the Bennett govern-
ment would not now have its
members lined up so firmly be-
hind it-and-the CCF Opposition
would be able to fight for its
amendments with united trade
union support.

The fact is that the Bennett
government had no intention of
withdrawing a major piece of

_ legislation in the circumstances.
- The conference leadership’s tac-
‘tic in calling for withdrawal of
' Bill 28 prevented any serious ef-
fort to obtain- amendments and
' now that the discussion of amend-

ments is on the floor of the

‘ House it is obvious to the major-
ity of trade unionists that the

conference lost an opportunity to
press labor’s demands on MLAs.

In effect, the right-wing “gen-
erals” of the B.C. trade union
movement followed the bad ex-
ample of the Duke of York in the
famous rhyme — they marched

! their “army” up the hill and then

marched them down again.

On the first afternoon of the
labor conference in Victoria they
used their voting machine to push
through a steering committee de-
mand on the government to with-
draw Bill 28 and to bring down
amendments to the ICA Act at

‘ this session. Less than 24 hours

| later they approved by an equal:

ly large majority a contradictory

‘ motion which insisted that in no

' circumstances should the ‘legisla-

, tion be tabled.

All the delegates, whether from
TLC, CCL or railway unions,
were agreed that the proposed
new ‘Labor Relations Act is not
satisfactory to labor.

The position of the steering
committee was summed up by
smooth-talking R. K. Gervin. sec-

retary of the B.C. Trade Union

Congress. who said, “We want no
part of this act.”

Opposing view was expressed
by George Gee of the Electrical
Workers, Vancouver, who argued
that “withdrawal would be tanta-
mount to defeat. of .the govern-
ment.”

But “Roly” Gervin carried the
steering committee and the CCF-
CCL majority with him on his de-
mand for withdrawal of the bill.

There is no doubt that the CCF
bloc hoped by calling for with-
drawal to brand the Socred gov-
ernment as “anti-labor.”

But the conference stand can
only be a source of embarrass-
ment to CCF MLAs. They know
the government is in a position to
go ahead with the bill. Their
amendments must now be put for-
ward without the added prestige
of endorsation by a large and
representative gathering of the
main trade union bodies.

The demand for withdrawal
made little impresssion on the
Socred backbenchers to whom it
was directed. Their attitude is
that they are willing to be con-
vinced of labor’s point of view on
any proposed amendments but
that there is no possibility of
withdrawal.

The only ones who stand to
gain anything are Gervin’s politi-
cal friends, the Liberals, who will
be able to claim that the confer-
ence supported his stand that the
Coalition-fathered aC Act is
“basically sound.”

Sues:

Congress launches ©
‘survival campaign’

TORONTO.

The Canadian Peace Congress has launched its greatest campaign—‘‘a survival
campaign,’’ as acting secretary Bruce Mickleburgh told an emergency meeting of the

congress’ national council here last Sunday.

life.

determination to live,’’ Mickleburgh declared.

The campaign will take the
form of action around twin is-
“Stop the test. Stop’ the
bomb. Stop the war,” is the way
the speaker put it.

He introduced a “Call to Can-
ada,” which was adopted unani-
mously, urging the Canadian gov-
ernment to act, and calling upon
“every individual and organiza-
tion” to speak.

Mickleburgh warned ‘that “if
we survive the April 22 test in
the Pacific, there will be bigger
tests.” There is no limit to the
size of the bomb and “each side
will go on making bigger bom

Even the testing of these bombs
is a mortal danger, he warned.

Karen Morley, former Holly-
wood screen star, now a crusader
for peace, brought greetings from
the American Peace Crusade,
“that small and valiant band.”

She said that the 13 million
people of New York city now
realize, after the U.S. atomic en-
ergy commission said it could be
wiped out instantly by one H-

bomb, that all the places marked:

“shelter,” the subways, the dog-
tags on *the children, are utterly
useless. Lae

“McCarthyism is evaporating in
its radioactive dust,” she said.
“There is such a revulsion it is
like a shock treatment.”

Court awards custody

NEW YORK

Custody of the two Rosenberg

children, Michael and Robert, has

been awarded to their maternal

grandmother by a New York
court.

“We are here to fight to the end fot
We will not accept the death that is laid out for us. We have a flaming :

i x a) |

ul

oe Goong 1

) ‘i
hs ci acl ag 08 (le ii sssbate ediet his | soe

re Ce oa eB
7 Wr i

IN, NE)

1, mn

CW ay

1954

FRIDAY, APRIL 9,

Continued from page I

MOLOTOV

That there must be no re-

vival of German militarism
through the so-called European
Defense Community or a Euro-
pean Army in which the main
role would: be played by West
German armed ‘forces with Nazi
generals at their head.

That the Soviet proposal

for a European Collective
Security Treaty should be con-
sidered and that the Soviet Union
is prepared to agree to U.S. par-
ticipation in such a treaty.

That the Soviet Union is pre-

pared to join the North At-
lantic Treaty Organization and
help to make it into a really de-
fensive organization, which it is
not at present.

Here is a summary of the text

of the note:

“The Soviet Union has consis-
tently pursued a policy of peace
and of improved relations be-
tween countries.

“This is reflected in the pro-:

posals which the Soviet govern-
ment has put before the United
Nations for a general arms re-
duction and for the prohibition
of atomic and other weapons of
wholesale annihilation.

“As far as the Soviet Union is
concerned it will continue to in-
sist that a substantial reduction
in the arms and armed forces of
the countries is necessary and
that an agreement must be reach-
ed to rule out the employment
of atomic energy for destruction
and the wholesale annihilation
of human beings.

“The significance of such ef-
forts on the part of countries is
growing ever greater, especially
since the destructive power of
atomic weapons is constantly in-
creasing and, more than that,
there have appeared hydrogen
weapons which are many times

more powerful than atomic weap-
ons. i

“There can be no doubt that
the employment of atomic and
hydrogen weapons in a war would

bring” the peoples untold suffer-
ing.

‘It would mean the wholesale
annihilation of civilians and the
destruction of big cities, the
centres of present-day industry,
culture and science, including
such old centres of civilization as
the leading capitals of the world.”

The note then goes on to point
out that during the Berlin Con-
ference the Soviet government
submitted a draft of a Treaty for
Collective Security in Europe as
part of its proposals for main-
taining peace in Europe and pre-
venting a new war.

All the European countries, ir-
respective of the social systems,

PACIFIC TRIBUNE — APRIL 9, 1954 — pace |

Union, of all the big powers |
belonged to the anti-Hitler ©

could participate, and such a SY*
tem of collective security woul
put an end to the formation of
antagonistic military groups 1
groups in Europe.

The note reiterates the soviet
view that. the so-called Europes”
Defense Community and the 5? a
called European Army woul
lead to the restoration of Germa?
militarism, with dangerous on
sequences for peace in Euro?
and for the security of West G&
many’s neighbors.

“Tt ig well known that in view
of the plans to organize a Eu of
pean Army, ruling quarters k
West Germany are openly wo
ing to speed the remilitarizatio?
of West Germany and to £0 4s
regular amed forces of all kit!
and no longer find it necess
to conceal their aggressive a
with respect. to neighboring cou”
tries.

“For this reason the peace
minded nations of Europe,
pecially West Germany's neig”
bors, cannot but feel a legitim™
anxiety for their security, in ¥'
of ithe danger stemming from 4 ‘A
reviving German militarism #
the incorporation of West

many in a European defense
munity.”

On the North Atlantic Trea
the Soviet note states:

“The position of the sovie
government with regard to all
North Atlantic. Treaty is fe
known. The government of
USSR did not share, nor ca! 3
today, the view that this trea
is defensive.

“The Soviet severnmeny ai,
ceeds from the fact that He
North Atlantic Treaty establis ee
a closed group of countries ind
ignores ithe problem of avert
fresh: German aggression.

jet
“And inasmuch as the oa

ei

a
tion, is the only one that i oy

signatory to this treaty, the
Atlantic Treaty cannot but PU ai
garded as an aggressive P2 ‘pio®
rected against the Soviet U ;
“Plainly enough, given )
proper conditions, the North 14
lantic Treaty Organization © _
lose its aggressive characte icf
that is, if all the big powers colt

belonged to the anti-Hitler ©
tion participated in it.

“In view of this’ the sia
ernment, guided by the ae
ed principles of its foreig2 at
of peace and desirous of rel
the tension in internation? 0 i ‘a
tions, states its readiness
with the interested gove ee
in examining the matter ® jcipat
ing the Soviet Union P :
in the North Atlantic Trott