cP2a7205 4 3 a 3. Here is a photo story of railway rationalization. The man at the right has a which the freight cars roll and are directed to the right tracks to join outgo bird's eye view of about 3,000 freight cars which move daily through the Agincourt ‘marshalling yards in Toronto. At the left, the artificially-created “hump”, a hill over A COMMUNITY’S life - and- death drama is _ being fought in the small North- ern Ontario town of Nakina. A similar battle is underway in Wainwright, Alberta. And if ‘these two towns die, a similar fate may befall other tiny, liv- ing communities from one end of this country to the other. While the issue may seem to be small, it does threaten imme- diately the welfare of hundreds of workers -in Nakina and in Wainright. The issue is whether railway crews on Canadian Na- tional railway lines should be Switched at these communities as at present, or whether they should be “run through.” The railway, of course, wants to introduce a run-through; the towns are fighting to hold it off. = The issue is not just one that affects the jobs of 90 workers and their families in Nakina be- cause it is part of a much lar- ger issue of rationalization and -modernization. Plans for -mod- ernizaticn now advanced by the CN and CPR have ramifications for railway workers from one end of the country to the other. In London, Ontario, for ex- ample, railroaders have felt the - hot breath of modernization in the announcement that their car shops, employing several hun- dred workers, are to be shut down by 1966. While the Lon- don workers have been carrying *on a militant struggle to save their shops and have the sup- port of the entire community, they have not yet forced the railway brass to back down. In Toronto railway workers are now asking how many jobs will be lost when automated marshalling yards are put into operation at Keele St. and High- _ Way Seven. _ As far as Nakina and Wain- right are concerned, it should be clear that if the companies get the green light here, they will push for other run-throughs as well. The result could be a series of ghost towns scattered along the rail lines of this country. The Nakina run-through plan was intended to begin last Oct. 25; but strong pressure by rail- way workers has compelled the government to delay it and to set up a one-man royal com- mission of Mr. Justice Samuel Freedman. from Winnipeg. In its presentation to this commission the- town of Nakina has suggested establishment of a run-through committee with representatives from govern- ment, municipal boards, em- ployees and communities. The whole kit and kaboodle of railway modernization is now before Parliament in the © form of Bill C-120 — an act to establish a branch-line rationa- lization authority. The railways hope this au- thority will carry through an “orderly closing down’ of what are called “uneconomical” branch lines. If this legislation is adopted some 3,800 miles of branch-line tracks will be aban- doned. About 90 percent of this mileage is on the prairies, while the other 10 percent is ‘scat- tered through most of the other provinces. And this is just a beginning. The CPR has plans to eliminate an additional 3,226 miles of track once the first stage is passed. The tremendous social and economic effects of wholesale abandonment of branch lines in the prairie provinces is illus- trated by the fact that 500 rural stations would be closed, 880 grain elevators would lose rail service and scores of rural com- munities would have their train services terminated. The act thus proposes to ra- tionalize and streamline the railway industry no matter what the consequences will be to communities and railway work- ers. In this respect it is worth- while recalling that technolo- gical changes in this industry have already resulted in a 28 percent decline in the labor force from 1952 to 1962. Bill C-120 would continue this pro- cess and affect entire commu- nities as well. While a royal commission has been set up to hear arguments on the proposal to adopt run- throughs in Nakina and Wain- _ Bill C-120, soon to come up in Parliament, may do harm to hundreds of railroad workers and dozens of com- munities across Canada. ° Why are all the benefits of the modern age going to the railway companies and all the hardships going to the workers? By KENNETH YOUNGER right, Bill C-120. itself contains no provision for public hearings. And none of its provisions protect the railway workers. The only provision is that there be “compensation where the abandonment of a branch line necessitates change of resi- dence.” This presumes that a worker can find work in the railway “industry somewhere else with no difficulty. But it does not en- sure comparable work or com- parable pay. The experience of Windsor and other communities has shown that when there is a large-scale move of the labor force there may also be forced sales of homes. The proposed railway act offers no adequate compensation for such forced sales by workers moving to other localities. Any compensation given will only be given to those who “change residence”: but no job security is guaranteed to those who do not change residence, and it may be impossible for a number of reasons for a work- -er’s family to change residence. All this is sharply contrasted. trains. This type of modernization has railway workers worried about their jobs. T article discusses the. whole railway problem. Railroad rationalization t Life-and-death struggle | of the town of Nakina to the benevolent attitude of Bill C-120 toward the railway com- panies. They will be compen- sated for maintaining services until the abandonment. is car- ried through. No one proposes to argue against modernization in indus- try. But why should workers, entire communities and the pub- lic as a whole be victimized ‘by modernization rather than bene- fitting from it? At the same time modernization will enable the railway companies to amass additional profit, some of it sub- sidized by government. There is another important question that is entirely thrown out the window — that of rail- way transportation as a service essential to the national econ- ~omy. The railway companies meas- ure everything in terms of pro- fitability and not in terms of services that are essential. Many of the branch lines are essential to the people of this country, even though they are not profitable to the railway companies. The people already pay subsidies to the rail com- panies in the form of taxes to the government. ' people as a whole. February 26, 1965—PACIFIC TRIBUNE—Page © Bill C-120 is therefore contr@ ry not only to the interests @ many communities and wort ers, but it is also against tl best interests of the Canadial What is needed is a national transportation policy based © public ownership. Both the e@ lier McPherson report, and nov Bill C-120 have evaded comin to grips with the need for su@ a policy. 3 pressed many of its views the railway in a tract, “Cr on the Railways,” which it } urged its local organizations ®)— send to all railway lodges, farm organizations and other intel ested parties. Widespread opposition to Bi C-120 has created a basis cooperation between raily unions and farm organizatl and it can even win supp! from provincial _legislatu municipal governments 4 small business interests. In this struggle, the Comm nist Party proposes to against the passage of Bill C- and has put forward a slog of “Public Service, a Nat Necessity!”’ It feels the railway work’ can win extensive support f farm organizations for their mands for job security, 4 quate compensation, improv! pensions at 60, retraining relocation at company expel The Communist Party als? suggests that the railway unio! can strengthen their own C@ if they actively support passage of the Labor (Stal ards) Act proposing a minim wage of $1.25 per hour. At the same time, the C0 munist Party stresses its 0 position that what is ultimaté needed is a __publicly-ow! transportation system. This allels the view expressed by © Saskatchewan Farmers Uni? which recently recommended ! tionalization of the CPR.