Police told him to stop petitioning.

His right
to petition -

WENTY-seven-year-old Edward Elliott of Hamilton,
Ont., won his right to campaign against the U.S. war
in Vietnam. His campaign was halted temporarily on

July 30 when police confiscated his sandwich-board sign
and pamphlets being handed out — because they said he
was contravening a city bylaw.

A city solicitor explained: “You have to have a license
from the police before you can distribute handbills and
pamphlets on the sidewalk.”

Police had warned Elliott, a Steelworker, the day be-
fore, but he resumed his campaign. The police laid no
charges but had asked Elliott to come to the police station
on the next Tuesday.

“Tll be back next week,” said Elliott, “and Pll consi-
der taking legal action if the police don’t stop interfering
with my freedom in distributing these pamphlets.”

On Aug. 3 Hamilton City Council overruled the police
and affirmed-Elliot’s right to hand out pamphlets. Elliot

said he was told his campaign was legal providing he did --

not block sidewalks or pester pedestrians. '

Elliott said he painted the board himself and bought
the pamphlets with his own money. His sandwich board
proclaimed in red and white letters on one side: “The
slaughter in Vietnam is a tragic disgrace to humanity. The
U.S. is using 80,000 troéps with machine guns and mortars
— flaming gasoline — bombing attacks — to ‘free?’ Viet-
nam from Communism by a blood bath.”

The other side called on people to write letters to their
newspapers, MPs and Washington — “or just tell your
neighbor of your feeling.” The sign added: “Bring human-
ism to Vietnam.”

With the pamphlets he was also handing out postcards
addressed to the Canadian Prime Minister:

They said: “Dear Mr. Pearson: Please use Canada’s
influence openly and forcefully to (1) Stop the war in Viet-
nam; (2) Negotiate for the withdrawal of U.S. troops; (3)
Let the Vietnamese people decide their own affairs.”

He asked those who accepted the pamphlets to sign
the cards and drop them into the mail. «

Elliot said he read about the pamphlets in a Canadian
Peace Congress newsletter to which he subscribes. They
sell at one cent each to defray publishing costs. He. in-
itially bought 200 and has ordered another 200.

government and labor

AST May, four prominent
trade union leaders in Bri-
tish Columbia presented a

statement on automation to de-
legates attending a labor-man-
agement conference on indus-
trial relations.

The trade unionists were. W.
A. Stewart, president of the

_ Shipyard General Workers’ Fe-

deration; Homor Stevens, se-
cretary of the United Fisherman
and Allied Workers Union; Jack
Phillips, secretary of the Van-
couver Civic Employees’ Union
(Outside Workers); and Al King,
national executive board mem-
ber, District 1, International
Union of Mine, Mill and Smelter
Workers (Canada). :

In the subsequent discussion
in the labor movement ‘it be-
came evident that the views
presented in the automation
statement were shared by a
number of other labor leaders.

The four trade union leaders
warn that “Canada has not felt
the full impact of automation
yet. The number of computers
in use has been approximately
doubling every year. for some
time and has still not reached
the point where it is a major
factor in industry. But at this
rate of development it could be-
come so in a very short period
of years.”

The statement warns that in
these circumstances “no one
can be satisfied with mere cor-
rective measures designed to
ease the flow of labor between
occupations. The problems can-
not be met without central plan-
ning to utilize the full produc-
tive capacity of industry and
labor.”

Specific proposals are made
in respect to government policy
and the role of the trade unions.

' These proposals are published

below in full as a contribution
to the continuing discussion on
automation and the labor move-
ment.

An acceptable policy, the
statement says, must be based
on the determination that the
people will not be the victims
of unemployment, crisis or dis-
location caused by automation,
but will be the beneficiaries of
all the benefits in the form of
increased production, higher liv-
ing standards, greater leisure
and improved social services,
that automation makes possible.

This implies a total commit-
ment by the government to
maintain full employment and
maximum economic expansion.

Without exhausting the possi-
bilities or requirements of

policy, government policy must,

as a minimum, include:

(1) A vigorous program to de-

velop a secondary industry. The

AUTOMATION

A policy for

National Economic Council visu-
alizes the need of a 50 percent
increase in manufacturing. We
wholeheartedly endorse that ob-
jective, but warn that it will
not come about by leaving it to
industry to accomplish by spon-
taneous, profit motivated invest-
ment.

Experience shows that ca-
pital is much more likely to take
the easy road of seeking quick
profits from overexpansion of
the extractive industries direct-
ed to the export of raw ma-
terials. 5

Government must be pre-
pared to force the pace of sec-
ondary industry by banning ex-
ports in raw form beyond, say,
40. percent of output in any
given line. Where industry fails
to .develop secondary manu-
facturing itself, the government
must stand prepared to do so
through the medium of public
enterprise.

(2) Government must be pre-
pared to intervene on an in-
creasing scale in ‘the planning
and direction of investment to
insure that it takes the form
needed to assure full employ-
ment and maximum utilization
of technological _ possibilities.
This requires. both public super-
vision over private investment,
and large-scale government in-
vestment to provide needed
community facilities, transpor-
tation, communication, utilities,
public services, etc., and where
necessary, direct government
investment in fields of enter-
prise now reserved to private
interests. :

(3) Government must take
the necessary. legislative steps
to remove the shackles that
presently prevent labor from
playing its proper role.

If we are about to enter the
era of automation, the whole
range of collective bargaining
procedures and policies needs to
be overhauled to permit collec-
tive bargaining to do its job of
protecting labor against the po-
tential danger of automation,
and assuring to labor the poten-
tial benefits thereof.

This means:

(1) If automation will in fact
bring the revolution in produc-
tivity the experts predict, it fol-
lows that the pace of progress
in wages and conditions must
be stepped up far beyond what
management and labor is ac-
customed to, in order to keep a
proper balance between produc-
tion and distribution.

Should productivity begin to
rise at rates of four or five or
10 percent per annum, while
wages continue to: be negotia-
ted on the basis of one or two
percent improvement factors as

August 27,

-week, and rallies its force

in the past, it is obvious # ’
the result would soon be 42”
creasing, and crisis prod

gap between available 2%
and available purchasing P

(2) Rising productivity My
producé shorter hours of We
The reduction in hours may
the form of a_ shorter
week, increased vacations;
lier retirement, etc. It is
likely to come about if the
union movement adopts 2 5B,
objective, such as the 30° Y

trad?

achieve it in all indusv
through a_ coordinated mo
ment. :

(3) Labor and managet
begin to negotiate on the P
ciple that the worker
right to a job. This means
collective bargaining co?
in future should include P
sions against layoff . an@
guaranteed annual wages:

They must include provisi
for the measures nee
when plants and parts of B®
are automated: seniority [2%
retraining and relocation p
sions, ‘early retirement re
sions, and. such other meas
as are necessary to assure
the inevitable reduction st
work force takes place wi 0
minimum possible displace
of workers from employ™

(4) Labor laws must pe?
hauled. Unions that ar@
tied down to agreements ,
periods of three, five an th
“10 years, are likely to find ,
selves in the position of
faced with major cha?
employment .nd_ oP
which cannot,
laws, be negotiated
have become an
fact.

Two changes are nec

unt
establi

e salt’

First, the ban on striker
conciliation procedures
the currency of an @ i
must be lifted to giv©
the power to pargaiy
changes when they occur

Second, unions must, a
requirement, be informe
pending introduction tit
nological changes wel 1
vance, with managemer, |
mitted to negotiate Hs
unions over the meas
quired.

a _

_pod
1965—PACIFIC TRIBUNE~