Policy will be test of wood caucus

In my last article I referred to the
Woodworkers’ Rank and File
Caucus and said that I would come
back to that subject.

Since then, I have asked a few
knowledgeable people to give me
their opinions on the future of the
WREC with its main base among
the fallers.

- | particularly asked about the
prospects of continued support
from the fallers, who, it appears,

achieved a major gain in the last ~

round of contract negotiations
when the contentious issue of pay-
ment for their travel time from the
marshalling point to the work site
and return was resolved. The
answer I received, was qualified:
“We believe that militants among
loggers, sawmill workers and
plywood workers will continue to
support the WRFC on the basis of
its program.”

In asking that hard question
about the fallers, I was mindful of
some of the things I had read in
Tough Timber, a story by Myrtle
Bergren about the organization of
the loggers in British Columbia.

For example, she quotes Hjalmar
Bergren, logger, Communist, and
pioneer organizer who contributed
much to the building of the Interna-
tional Woodworkers of America:
“Grievances, sure they are impor-
tant, but they are only one plank in

the platform. What about the
things that are going to eliminate
grievances, what about the union,
the committees, the agreements?
These are the things that are going
to provide the means to process and
eliminate grievances — collective
bargaining.

“You have the industry. You
can’t say that wages are a grievance.
They are an issue. You can’t have a

LABOR
COMMENT

BY JACK PHILLIPS

grievance that covers the whole in-
dustry, that would be an issue. A
grievance is something that affects
certain individuals. We have got to
have a program to cope with the
issues and grievances.”’

Those words were written in con-
nection with a period before the
IWA came into being and before
the woodworkers enjoyed the wide
collective bargaining rights they en-
joy today. But they held true to this
day. Grievances should be taken up
and settled, but within the

‘Solidarity breached’
in dispute over ship

The B.C. Federation of Labor is
seeking a meeting with officers of
the Seafarers’ International Union
and the Canadian Merchant Service
Guild following scathing charges by
the national president of the Cana-
dian Brotherhood of Railway and
Transport Workers that the two
unions had committed ‘‘a flagrant
breach of solidarity’’ in the dispute
involving the flag of convenience
barge Douglas Fir.

Don Nicholson, CBRT president
sent telegrams- out to west coast
union locals stating that he had
been compelled to lay charges under
the Canadian Labor Congress con-
stitution against the two unions in a
bid to resolve the dispute.

The seamen’s section of the
CBRT, Local 400, had sought to
force the owners of the Douglas Fir,
a self-propelled barge registered in
the tax’ haven of Panama but
chartered to Maple Leaf Shipping
of Vancouver, to hire a Canadian

crew, in line with CLC policy. The
12-man vessel was built to transport
lumber to California and has
already taken work away from two
Canadian-crewed tugs which nor-
mally ply the lumber trade.
- The CBRT mounted informa-
tional pickets at several coast ports
where the Douglas Fir sought to
load and unload cargo but was forc-
ed to withdraw them following
court injunctions and a damage suit
against the union.

IYC meeting

Two of the Canadian delegates at
the recent world conference ‘‘For a
Peaceful and Secure Future for All
Children’’ in Moscow, will
highlight a special ‘‘Event for the
International Year of the Child’’
Monday, October 15.

Mary Dennis, national president
of the Canadian. Congress of
Women and featured speaker for
the evening, will be joined by fellow
delegate Hannah Polowy, president
of the B.C. IYC committee, at
Rooms 1 and 2 of the Media Centre
in Robson Square, 800 Hornby,
beginning at 8 p.m.

However, citizen pickets con-
tinued to protest the Douglas Fir’s

“use of Japanese crew members and

in the wake of the actions, the vessel
Owners indicated they were
prepared to consider the demand
for a Canadian crew.

But at that point, the SIU and the
CMSG took a ‘‘backdoor’’ ap-
proach, Nicholson charged, when
they sought to obtain recognition
for their respective organizations.

In his telegram to unionists,
Nicholson declared: ‘‘As a result of
economic action against owners of
vessel Douglas Fir in B.C. ports all
CLC affiliates were advised by the
CLC not to sign any agreements
with the owners until and unless all
pending or existing injunctions and
court actions against labor
organizations were dropped or
withdrawn.”’

The B.C. Federation of Labor
reiterated that call, Nicholson said,
and also offered to mediate in the
dispute, an offer which the SIU re-
jected.

“Despite all of this,’’ he charged,
“the SIU and the CMSG then pro-
ceeded to sign a recognition docu-
ment with the vessel owner on the
basis that legal actions against all
organizations other than the Inter-
national Transport Federation and
the CBRT would be dropped.

**The obvious result of this would
be to shackle the ITF and the CBRT
in respect to taking any further

economic action against this
owner,”’ he said.
Nicholson said that he was

“‘shocked at this flagrant breach of
solidarity,’’ particularly so since
“the SIU refused to participate in
previous economic actions against
the vessel.’”

He said that the CBRT was lay-
ing constitutional charges against
the two unions, adding that he was
“confident of having the support of
Other west coast trade union
organizations.”’

The Douglas Fir was in Van-
couver last week, loading lumber at
Vancouver Wharves for transport
to California. Part of its contract
also involves back-hauling bunker
oil from California to this province.

PACIFIC TRIBUNE—OCTOBER 12, 1979—Page 12

framework of overall program and
policy.

It is against this background that
we should examine the recent state-
ment by the spokesmen for the
WREC, in which they seek to ex-
plain ‘‘why we need a rank and file
caucus.””

First, the document deals with
the 1979 contract negotiations, as
follows:

“The record: For many years the
IWA has conducted its negotiations
on the basis of ‘how little’ the
membership will accept if we tell
them nothing, keep negotiations
almost completely secret and go
along with the employers in almost
every way?

‘Rather than: How much the
members can get if the leaders
organize the membership, prepare
them for struggle and involve them
in the negotiations from start to
finish. In the meantime, profits are
skyrocketing, inflation is robbing
us every day and the IWA is not

adequately protecting its member-

ship of getting a fair share of the
wealth the members produce.”’

Then follows a call for the IWA
to bring its program and policies in-
to line with current realities, as
follows:

a).‘*Wages: In spite of the in-
creases, wages are inadequate if
rents, taxes, interest rates, food
costs, gas prices and other costs are
considered.

b) ‘‘Inflation: No COLA protec-
tion. Who knows what next year
will bring? The 9.5 percent wage in-
crease for the second year of the
agreement may be conipletely in-
adequate. A strong COLA clause
could have protected the purchasing
power of the membership.

c) ‘‘Automation and Mechaniza-
tion: Thousands of members could
lose their jobs in the next two years
due to this, yet shorter hours and
earlier retirement were not even
studied, even though the 1978
regional convention unanimously
instructed the regional executive to
study these problems and report
their findings to the wage and
policy conference of March, 1979.

d) ‘‘Forestry Tenure: Social
Credit provincial governments have
practically given the forests to eight
large corporations. The stumpage
fees paid to the province are barely
enough to support the B.C. Forest
Service which cannot do the job
which is required to keep our
forests productive into the future.
The IWA leadership has failed to
come up with policies to cope with
this vital problem.”’

After citing the arbitrary refusal
of the leadership at the 1978 con-
vention to call special conferences
for the tradesmen and the fallers in
the IWA, to discuss their specific
problems, the circular points out
that ‘‘the tradesmen and fallers held
their conferences anyway.’’ In
short, these conferences were held
outside the framework of the IWA
because there was no other way to
go at that time.

It should be noted that the fallers
believe that their sustained pressure
on the leadership compelled the lat-
ter.to press hard for a resolution of
the travel time issue in the 1979
negotiations. It should also be
noted that the leadership of the
IWA, after some harsh criticism of
the pressure tactics used by the
tradesmen during the recent con-
tract negotiations, finally agreed to
call a conference of tradesmen in

- the union. -

The tradesmen, for their part,
agreed to work within the IWA to
settle their unresolved grievances.

It is against this background that
we should consider the policy
guidelines advocated by the WRFC.

1). ‘‘Restore democracy in the
IWA by making the leadership res-
pond to the wishes of all sections of
the membership.

2.) ‘Organize to assure the elec-

tion of leaders who will be guided
by the needs and instructions of the
«membership.

3). ‘‘Utilize the constitution and
bylaws of the union to solve pro-
blems by unity and majority action,
not by dual organizations and
minority called strikes. and wildcat
actions.’

It should be abiinue that the
sponsors of this document are
responsible members of the IWA
who believe that the union should
be more democratic, more respon-
sive to the problems of the member-
ship and more aggressive in collec-
tive bargaining.

For example, the WRFC bulletin
notes that the IWA and FIR (the
employers’ organization) hold
equal responsibility for the release
of yearly accident statistics in the
industry. While conceding that the
Statistics for fatal accidents are
given from time to time, the WRFC
points out that the number of per-
manent disabilities is ‘‘kept
shaded.’’ In 1977, according to
their bulletin, there were 653 per-
manent disability accidents. But in
1978, the total rose to 860. :

“It is obvious,’’ claims the WRFC
bulletin, ‘‘that our joint safety pro-
gram is a total failure. Our union
must take a more militant attitude
towards issues of safety and also
towards medical facilities and
emergency services available to us.
Nineteen .woodworkers have been
killed so far in-1979! Don’t become
number 20!”’

It will be interesting to see how
the WRFC develops and the extent
to which it will receive support from
the IWA~-membership. The
knowledgeable people I spoke to
pointed out that at this time it is

confined mainly to Vancouver
Island. However, they went on t0
say that if their program and)
policies are correct and get wide
support on Vancouver Island from
loggers, sawmill workers an
plywood workers, then the positiv
effects would be felt in other are

If such a grass roots movemen
to be viable, at least in my opi
it must place its main emphasis
program and policies. While it
necessary to fight for the wi
possible degree of democra
within the organization, democ
should not be seen as an end itse
but rather as a means of wider it’
voivement of the membership in
affairs of their union and in
fight for their legitimate goals, a
progressive policies. While le
wingers should support su
movements where they can play
positive role, they should not do
on a blanket, anti-leadership
which excludes the possibility
cooperation with people in lead
ship positions around specific issu
and policies. When opposition
leadership becomes a principle
itself, all office holders in
union, including left-wing and p
gressive leaders who do their best
truly represent the members
become the main enemy, instead
the big corporations and th
political parties.

' A sectarian, dogmatic approa'
to leadership is a form of anarchi
divorced from all realistic co
sideration of program and poli
At best, it can only result
needless disruption and, ultimate!
isolation and defeat.

If the WRFC hopes to becom!
progressive and viable force,
should avoid this fatal trap.

Court decision seen
as a ‘moral victory’

Continued from page 1
stand although he added that he
was disappointed that the court did
not close the door to a continuation
of the inquiry by the Combines
branch.

In fact, in his ruling, eetice Mc-
Kay did leave room for future hear-
ings as well as further applications
for court orders.

The latter part of his decision in-
cluded ‘‘some observations in the
event that after the resumption of
the inquiry it becomes necessary for
a further application under Section
17(3).

“If objection is taken (by the

union) to the answering of a ques-
tion on the ground that it relates to
activities of workmen or employees
for their own reasonable protection
then the chairman must determine
whether the activity can be said to
be ‘for their own reasonable pro-
tection.’

“If it can be so characterized,

then the exemption applies — if,
not, then the witness must answer,’”

Justice McKay stated.
Despite the opening left to future
resumption of the inquiry, how-

PACIFIC

RiBbUNE

‘point disputed by the Comb

City or town
Postal Code

eR RES

NNN NS RN Oe

Read the paper that fights for labor

Address...... = Se eg

1 am enclosing:
1 year $101) 2 years $18 6 months $6 0
OlidO New( Foreign 1 year $12 0
Donation $. .

cs

iN

NICHOL (r), STEVENS, H
SON ... court upholds
stand.

ever, the decision has added cons!
erable weight to the union’s 10?
campaign to stop the Combines ®
vestigation. The ruling could po:
formidable obstacle to continua
of that investigation.

It may also add weight to the a"
mand for fishermen’s barg:
rights. Justice McKay did state
fishermen are indeed workmen

branch and fishing companie¢:
— although he was clear in di
entiating: “workmen” from ‘
ployees.”’

o-8.@