IGNS are not lacking that the
forthcoming session of the
BC. Legislature may confront or-
ganized labor in this province with
a brand new batch of anti-labor
legislation.

With the Socred government
setting the tone in its cancellation
of B.C. Government Employees’
union dues checkoff, followed by
Similar demands: covering all
unions in the construction indus-
try by the Federation of Construc-
tion Industries Association cover-
ing some 700 employers, now
comes the Canadian Manufactur-
ers’ Association of B.C. demanding
a new Bill 43 dog collar for labor.

The CMA tycoons, posing as the
champions of “freedom to work”
(unemployed please-note), want an
end to the closed or union shop.
Second, and with a gall equalling
that of the Socreds and the con-
struction bosses, the CMA wants
the union checkoff abolished if “it
appears they (union dues) will be
used for political purposes.” The
CMA boys also want the govern-
ment empowered to break any
strike which these tycoons may
designate as not being in the “pub-
lic” interest.

The above is not all the CMA
tycoons wanted, but it is a fair
sample. “And,” said its chief
spokesman, R. B. McDonnel, “the
CMA had a very cordial welcome
from the cabinet.”

Well, why not? It is a CMA-
monopoly-dominated government,
depending for its continued re-
election on the vast political slush
funds tossed into the Socred pot
by big business.

Having “paid the piper” big
business now “calls the tune”; for
a quick return on its political in-
vestment big business demands
new and vicious anti-labor legisla-
tion. To strip organized labor of
its right to finance its own inde-

Pacific Tribune

Editor —. TOM McEWEN
Associate Eduor — MAURICE RUSH
Business Mgr. — OXANA BIGELOW

Published weekly at
Room 6 — 426 Main Street
Varicouver 4, B.C.
Phone MUtual 5-5288
Subscription Rates:
One Year: $4.00
Six Months: $2.25
Canadian and Commonwealth
countries «except Australia): $4.00
One year. Australia, United States and
all other countries: $5.00 one year,

Authorized as second class mail
Post Office Dept., Ottawa

Resolution for 1961

pendent political action or “new
party”; for legislation aimed at
promoting open government
strike-breaking, and the restora-
tion of “open shop” industrial ex-
ploitation. Anti-labor legislation
which would return B.C.’s wage
earners to the “law of the jungle.”

While the CMA and their Socred
government mouth fine phrases
about the “current critical unem-
ployment situation,” is it clearly
evident that their only concern is
to utilize unemployment to the full
in an effort to break down hard-
won labor standards, thereby en-
hancing their profits at the ex-
pense of the whole, employed and
unemployed alike.

Organized labor in B.C. needs to
be vigilant, resolute and united in
order to meet this new and men-
acing Socred-monopoly attack on
its organizations and rights. Only
by determined and united action
to wipe Bill 43 from the statute
books will the threat of new and
more vicious legislation be coun-
teracted.

A good resolution for 1961...
an end to anti-labor legislation in

ee.

Canada and the Congo

a Bee situation in the Congo goes

from .bad to worse. Many
Afro-Asian nations, drafted under

the United Nations “mandate” of .

July 14 “to aid in the speedy re-
moval of the Belgians from the
Congo”, and to give the democrat-
ically elected government of Pre-
mier Patrice Lumumba every as-
sistance to establish responsible
government, have now withdrawn,
or are withdrawing their forces
from the Congo. These Afro-Asian
nations refuse to become pawns in
UN “policies” for the restoration;
of US., British and Belgian im-
perialism in the Congo.

The Congo government of Pre-
mier Patrice Lumumba has been
violently dispersed, Lumumba
himself tortured and imprisoned
by. “strong man” native stooges
fronting for foreign imperialisms.
In this sorry mess the UN and its
secretary-general Dag Hammar-
skjold has grossly violated its July
14 “mandate”, and now serves as
a cloak for U.S., British and Bel-
gian colonialists to sabotage and
deny independence and self-gov-
ernment to the Congolese people.

This week at the final meeting
of this year’s. UN sessions, a U.S.-
British “resolution” aims at. set-

ting up a stooge “government”
regardless of the will or desires of
the Congolese people; an act
which can only lead to further
chaos and bloodshed. Six months
of such imperialist conspiracies,
carried out through UN agencies,
has. brought the Congo to the
brink of civil war, in which hun-
dreds if not thousands of Congo-
lese have already been killed.

Where does Canada stand in re-
lation to this tragedy of UN mis-
management? So far the Diefen-
baker role is to tag along in the
wake of U.S. imperialism. When
Premier Lumumba visited Canada
and asked for technical and indus-
trial aid, Diefenbaker sent: troops.
In the latest U.S.-British “policy”
to set up its own “government” in
the Congo, the call will be for more
troops to replace the Afro-Asian
forces.

Our .position should be. clear:
technical aid, trade facilities,
friendship with the elected govern-
ment of the Congo, every assist-
ance possible, but no troops. That
Way peace and constructive pro-
gress can be assured for the Congo.
The U.S. - British - Hammarskjold
path has led, and can only lead, to
aggression and the restoration of
colonialism in the Congo.

Tom
- McEwen

HEN the Bennett government
W arbitrarily cancelled the
union dues checkoff of the B.C.
Government Employees Associa-
tion on the phoney pretext that
such dues might be used to fin-
ance some political party, other
than .the Socreds, that action was
the “green-light’” for the organized
employers to follow suit.

It didn’t take long as may be
seen from the demand of the B.C.
Federation of Construction bosses
to the Socred cabinet, to abolish
the union dues checkoff in B.C.
on much the same phoney argu-
ments as the Socreds themselves
used. >

funds to Socred, Liberal and Tory
parties for “services rendered” or
anticipated. On the other’ hand
they are opposed to unions haying
the right to dispense their own
funds as each union may see fit,
whether in aid of a political cause
or a brother union on the picket
line.

Any suggestion of legislation
against the checkoff must be op-
posed with all the unity labor can

These big business tycoons hand.
out large sums of political ‘slush’

command, and = regarded as a
vicious, unprincipled and _ illegal
attack upon labor’s rights; a con-
tinuation of a long-sustained and
steadily mounting attack upon or-
ganized labor by government and
monopoly interests.

Perhaps the worst feature of it
is that labor itself, in the abuse of
checkoff rights by a swivel-chair
burocracy, has provided much of
the -pretexts behind which the
government and bosses mount this
attack,

To many of these union career-
ists the checkoff has served to
provide them with arbitrary
powers over their respective mem-
berships, thereby enabling profes-
sional office-holders to dictate
policies at will, without any refer-
ence to or by-your-leave of the
rank and file members.

Hence the apathetic ‘“what-the-
hell’s-the-use” attitude of union
members; the low attendance at
local. union meetings, a breakdown
of shop steward and union griev-
ance machinery, and of course,-a
‘growing animosity on the. part of
union membership to a checkoff
from their pay envelopes, for
which they can see little or no re-
turns, save a high-salaried top
brass. ; 3

In many unions, and quite open-

. ly expressed by members, it is

doubtful if one quarter or less of
the organized membership would
pay dues if it were left on a
“voluntary” basis “without the
checkoff.. It is ‘therefore ~small

threat, as any other attack of the

wonder that the Socreds and their
monopoly backers hope to ‘“cash-
in” by proposing anti-checkoff
measures, designed to completely
wreck long-established B.C. unions.

Of course this problem, like all
others, is not without a_ solution.
As a hard won democratic and
legal right, the checkoff must: be
preserved. Also how or on what
unions spend their percapita or
other revenues, is strictly the busi-
ness of their respective member-
ship, and no one else.

A checkoff check from the com-
pany office covering membership
dues is a fine thing, but only if
those entrusted with the job of dis-
pensing it do not forget where it
came from, or in whose interests
it should be spent.

To fight this latest checkoff
bosses and. their governments is
fought off, the unions must fight
as a united entity, not as a divided
and disgruntled membership with -
a swivel-chair careerist clamoring
fora checkoff check to the ex-
clusion of all else, and-~ looking
around for a wider ‘‘jurisdictional’’
fields to provide more of the same.

If this latest sneak attack of the
Socreds and bosses on the union
checkoff serves’ to weld union
membership and leaders into one
closely-knit fighting unit, it will
have served a good purpose, and
the checkoff will be seen by union
members, not as an impost to pay
high official salaries, but as a
fighting ‘weapon. ~ ~ :

December 23, 1960—PACIFIC’ TRIBUNE—Page 4

ee