NIL AIL “All in favour of America’s proposition raise their hands, now lets get on with the war in =e: T is one of the standing boasts of our democratic “way of life” that the will of the majority pre- vails on all issues. When we lecture (or threaten) other peoples and states on their “‘totalitarianism,” _ “dictatorships,” or other fancy names we invent to impress them with our superior ways, we invariably keep twanging on our “majority rule” theme. It may not impress the peoples of Europe or Asia a great deal, but it does help us take our eyes off the phony political algebra by which we compute cold-war “‘majorities.”” ; The New York National Guardian of August 16 carries a succinct article on this subject, intended to enlighten the common people of America on ‘‘what makes a UN majority?” __ : The Lees ai of the ae e's Council speak for million people. t includes Chiang - Kai-shek controlled “majority’”» — but excludes 475 million Chinese people, who would generally be voting in opposition to Chiang and his dollar backers. On such-vital questions as the seating of China in the UN in place of a Chiang Kai-shek puppet, vote against in the UN (with the voice of 687 million Chinese and Russian excluded) is very definitely a minority vote. __ “We are suffering from an optical illusion if we think that international voting (in the UN) is ‘demo- —eratic’,”” says columnist Walter Lippman. Henry JHE ten-day strike of 125,000 Canadian &. railway workers is virtually ended .Not by the rail bosses conceding their just de- mands in order to get the wheels rolling, but by parliamentary decree. As soon as the bill being debated in parliament —- the “Maintenance of Railway S (cena Act,, which some rail workers have already dubbed the four-cent-take-it- and-like-it-act — becomes law, the strike will end, according to statements of union, rail, and government officials. _ The terms of resumption of work, vague- ly incorporated in the bill, are based on the fast “best offer” of rail representatives Gord- on and Mather, a four-cent an hour wage in- -erease for all workers involved, and an im- plied “recognition” of the 40-hour work week, ‘but no word about when or if it may become effective. ae ae ‘The new act to break this strike provides the long sought after, extra-legal dicta- torial machinery, which the railway bosses and other of their ilk have clamored for, to _ impose their terms upon the workers. The central theme of the act is the introduction of compulsory arbitration, abhorrent to or- abrogate the democratic right of workers to withold their collective services as a last means of Securing their just demands. , At the moment the act is designed prim- - arily to curtail the present railway strike, ‘but one would be naive indeed to think that, Minority rule or the peaceful settlement of Korea, the “majority” . -U.S. minority. Gabriel, in the (London) Daily Worker. in the UN Wallace puts it another way: “‘. . . The Soviet Union, China and India, comprising half the population of the world, have less than 10 percent of the votes in the UNG 2 Here are two examples from the WNational Guardian review on ““What make a majority in the UN?” 1. Should the question of China's representa- tion be discussed? (Motion lost.) Voting for: India, Norway, Britain, USSR, Yugoslavia : 618,000,000. Voting against: Cuba, Ecuador, France, U.S., Chiang . . . 199,500,000. Majority for—418,500,000 ; majority for (with People's China), 893,500,000. Yet the motion was rs Should a peaceful settlement of Korean question be discussed? Voting for: Egypt, India, "s “representative” who votes with the U.S.-* USSR . . . 568,500,000. Voting against: Cuba, Ecuador, France, Norway, Britain, U.S., Chiang Sas ZSZ,500-000; Majority for—3 16,000,000; majority for (with Peoples’ China), 791,000,000- Yet the motion was “lost.” The kind of “majority rule” which decides UN actions has a dollar-tag mark, indicating the purchase of UN “majorities” to conform to the wishes of a It may also explain U.S. determina- tion to keep the true representatives of China out of the UN, and to preserve the fiction that aggression in Korea is ““Communist’”’ instead of Wall Street. ‘Dog Collar’ settlement — as occasion arises, it will not be extended (with penalties incorporated) to workers in other so-called public services. Australian workers have had this com- pulsory arbitration “dog-collar” legislation around their necks for several years—but far from eliminating strikes in public utili- ties or other industries, it has been one of the most outstanding provocations in the pre- cipitation of strike struggles. The very prin- ciple of compulsory arbitration is a negation of free collective bargaining. What boss is going to worry whether he bargains in good faith or not with ‘his employees’ representa- tives, when he knows that the government, always with a sympathetic ear to such ap- peals as “the-public interest” and “the inter- ests of national security” can appoint an ganized labor, because its end result is to \ “arbitrator” whose last word on wages, hours and conditions of work is final and binding? Pending a full analysis of all the rami- fications of this railway strike, deliberately sought by the rail bosses and their govern- met as a pretext for clamping down on labor, it is clear that in the days ahead labor will have to be more alert, more united, and more determined in its stand against this fascist type of strike-breaking legislation. The initial lesson should be obvious. If a solid strike of 125,000 railway workers can be broken and their just demands reduced (even “temporarily”) to a miserable four cents, what is in store for all Canadian labor. should it fail to heed the lesson and unite against a common evil? : , & woman, a working woman, and of course, a baby. So that his mother can legally receive back a TOM McEWEN . As We See lt fi Ee is a simple two-act play; a very ordinary play in which any working man or woman can take a leading part—and, with the price of hamburger hitting new highs, sooner or later undoubtedly - will, The leading characters in our drama are a working mother, a baby, the Unemployment Insurance Commission, and what is euphem- istically labelled a “court of referees.” The characters in such plays where the UIC is spotlighted may vary according to locale and circumstances, but the motif remains as fixed as MacArthur’s war communiques from Tokyo. Act I is unbelievably simple; just a matter of clipping a worker’s pay envelope for a regular fixed amount, accompanied by a fine sym- phony of propaganda, all to the effect that having been so clipped, one is thereby “insured” against the initial poverty and evils of unemployment. A very comfortable feeling indeed . , it were true! . . if only It may be added that during recent years the art of legally extracting money from workers’ pay envelopes has become so much a part of our “way of life,” that any group of workers.can carry through the roles in Act I without too much pre- vious experience in light opera work. —- . Act IT is a shade more complicated. We have Things could be simplified a great deal for the UIC if working women wouldn’t have babies. But, as the Russians say, “Chort (the devil take you), what can one do?” The baby is here, hale and hearty, and with a fine appetite, and under the observation of any eagle-eyed pro- fessional baby-sitter, appraised at one dollar an hour under our “free enterprise” herd estimates. On this point, the UIC provides a lot of helpful suggestions (gratis) which add spice to the play—but little else. * : As the curtain goes up on Act II our heroine has just been tossed out of her part-time job. But she doesn’t feel too badly about it. Hasn’t her pay envelope been clipped for several years just to take care of such an emergency? At least, that’s what she thought. Her job is now to find another job—during hours when other members of the family can ride herd on the baby, thus avoiding the professional dollar an hour rate. If mother works for 50 cents an hour, which the UIC terms “good pay,” and pays out a dollar an hour to keep tabs on her rapscallion of a baby, there is nothing left but a minus. One just can’t make that elusive first*million with that kind of arithmetic. So we see our heroine at the UIC offices once every week, punc-, tual on the hour, filling in numerous folios, forms, references, claims, etc., etc., etc. After several weeks of form-filling—and waiting (during which time she and the baby both have to wait)—the UIC doles out the munificient weekly sum of $6.70. 5 7 Computations are not made on what she had paid into UIC, but on the lowest percentage of what she earned on her last part-time job—and the UIC’s maximum figure of $6.70 shows how low these were, Anyhow, a “claim” jis established and a “benefit year” begun, and © that is something. This happy state of affairs is presumed to obtain until UIC finds a job at a wage and time suitable to our heroine's “domestic” limitations. Unquestionably it takes more than $6.70 a week, with hamburger (sometimes referred to as “ground round”) at 75 cents a pound, to put silver linings in our cold-war clouds, but as the saying goes “every little bit helps,” even it it is only $6.70 of the gross amount, extracted from one’s own pay envelope over a period of years, But the “benefit year” is short-lived. In less than three weeks UIC has found a job for our heroine at the “prevailing rate of 50 cents an hour.” But what about the baby ... and the price of baby-sitters? Tut, tut, madam, that’s no affair of the government’s. Under sections umpteen umpteen, clauses a to z of the act, the “claimant has not shown good cause . . . refusing or failing to apply . . . claimant should Pais been willing to arrange her domestic affairs to suit,” and so orth, : A baby? That’s not our business. The price of baby-sitters? One dollar from 50 cents leaves what? We're not interested in your arith- metic. Of course, you can appeal our ruling. Fill in form umpteen sumpteen and you will be notified in due course when our officer's ruling and your appeal will be heard, Six dollars and seventy cents. One woman and one baby. The “Merchant of Venice,” 1950 edition, with the UIC in the role of Shy- lock and the role of Portia tripled by a three-man “court of referees.” “The law provides that a married woman seeking employment is required to arrange her domestic affairs as to be available for em- ployment, if and when offered.” Therefore we, the triple-headed — Portia of the UIC, with one trade union card to embellish our plebian bona-fides, “find no grounds on which could On the in- Surance officer’s decision, (so) . , , ei oe “The law provides ...” that a married woman working in indus- try, pay her weekly whack of unemployment insurance. Should she contrive to have a baby meantime the “law” further provides that Junior be fitted into the intricate bureaucratic cogs of the UIC.-: + miserable $6.70 weekly refund on the money legally extracted from her pay envelope. : Exit working woman... with baby wh ; m en-- tecprige” .. pariod. , Vy ooping it up for “free Curtain, : : ‘ Published Weekly at 650 H ree TRIBUNE Tedstena tt By THE HING COMPANY LTD. / MA. 5288 } mE Telephone Tom McEwen mess CV MER VSG A PehS cura) sy 0% © SDGICON. m Subscription Rates: 1 Year, $2.50; 6 Months, $1.35. Printed by Union Printers BS seg Authorized as second class