Teamster leader calls
for picket line unity

“We know of no union in this
province that seeks at contract
time, and very few at any other
time, to compel the employers
to ship by union carrier,” stated
Ray Taggart, in a press release
issued in Toronto May 7 last by
the Teamsters Joint Council 52,
of which he is the president.
“Even worse,” the statement
continued, “is the fact that
Major industries whose workers
are represented by some of the
largest and most militant unions
in the country are allowed to
use non-union trucking compa-
nies, in some cases as exclusive
Carriers.”

Observing that too many
unions are taking the Teamsters
Union for granted when it comes
to its role and responsibility in
Strike situations, Taggart said,
“We in the Teamsters Union are
well aware of our responsibility.
We will assure that responsibil-
ity is lived up to in a trade
union manner.”

The statement observed that,
“Invariably, when a union em-
barks on a strike the Teamsters
Union is contacted very quickly
with a view to cutting off the
source of supply and the ship-
ment of any cargo from the
strikebound plant: or other busi-
ness. If we are not contacted
Officially before the strike be-
gins, we are confronted very
quickly afterwards because our
‘members, by the nature of their
work, become involved in al-
Most every strike that takes
place, no matter what the in-
dustry.”

Noting that any strike of any
union in any industry involves
the transportation industry, the
Statement pointed out ‘that, con-
trary to the understanding of
many. trade unionists, every
truck on the road is not driven
by a Teamster: “There are still

many unorganized trucking com-
panies. There are truck rental
companies well established all
over the continent. There are
Owner-operators (owner-drivers)
who lease themselves and their
trucks. They are not usually
unon members.”

Taggart referred to the fact
that in more and more cases
during a strike, where a com-
pany’s supply has been cut off
by refusal of Teamsters to cross
picket lines, one or all of these
non-union carriers have been
used to side step the Teamsters
and to defeat strikes. “The re-
sult,” he observed, “is not only
are strikes being prolonged un-
necessarily and in some cases
smashed, but non-union truck
lines are growing and truck
rental agencies and lease oper-
ators are getting bigger year
after year.”

The statement cited a few ex-
amples of “bloody stupidity” in-
volved in the omission by unions
in Ontario to compel employers
to ship by union carriers.

The first such case concerned
a manufacturing plant in Ham-
ilton, whose approximately 70
tradesmen were on strike for
about eight weeks. “Over 500
plant workers belonging to an-
other union,” the statement de-
clared, “crossed the picket line
at the insistence of their leader-
ship every day as long as the
strike lasted. The Teamsters re-
fused to cross the picket line
from beginning to end. The
struck company brought in a
non-union truck line whose
trucks were loaded and unload-
ed by members of the industrial
union in the plant. The still un-
organized truck line even today
enjoys the business of that
manufacturer. Not so strange is
the fact that at the time of writ-
ing this industrial union has just
unanimously rejected a contract

settlement. They are on the
verge of taking strike action and
will, if a strike becomes neces-
sary, be immediately faced with
the serious threat of their own
making —the non-union truck
line.”

Another example mentioned
was that of a chemical plant
with several hundred workers on
strike at one location. Thirty
miles away, another plant of the
same company continued to
operate, doing the same type of
work and organized by another
union, not on strike. “‘The com-
pany was allowed,” the state-
ment reported, “to take trans-
port trailers hauled by rented
tractors from the plant which
was not on strike through the
picket line into the strike-bound
plant, there to be loaded by
scabs and salaried personnel and
then back again through the
picket line to the plant which
was still operating and prepared
there by union members for a
union carrier to take over-the-
road. This strike is now over, but
one result is that the Teamsters
who respected the picket line
now have six less jobs because
their employer lost the account.”

Continuing, the statement
referred to a large industrial

union in Hamilton which had ~

called a strike of the office em-
ployees of a large manufacturing
plant. “The plant workers,” Tag-
gart declared, “members of an-
other local of the same union, at
the insistence of their leadership
crossed the picket line every
day for the duration of the
strike. The railroads, the nu-
merous service companies’. . .
were given free access and the
blessing of the striking union
to go through the picket lines.
Yet,” he added, “the Teamsters
Union was called on to refuse
to go in to pick up cargo that
was manufactured and assem-

“Rest assured your loyalty and hard work will be a
Martin—if not in this world, then in the next.”

bled by the same union behind
the picket line of their striking
brothers. The Teamsters, . of
course, respected the line for the
duration of the strike.”

As, a final example, mention
was made of a small craft union
which had called a strike against
a large industrial plant in Toron-
to. “There again,” the statement
commented, ‘several hundred
plant workers belonging to an-
other union working for the
same employer were instructed
for the duration of the strike to
cross the picket line and to con-
tinue to work. This union,” ac-
cording to Teamsters Joint
Council 52, ‘not only shrugged
off its responsibility by going
through the picket line, but
loaded and unloaded scab trucks
operated by one of the most vi-
cious strike-breaking agencies in
the country.”

Asserting that many similar
instances of trade union dis-
unity could be cited, Ray Tag-
gart, on behalf of the Teamsters
Joint Council, declared, ‘‘With-
out being boastful in any way,
we in the Teamsters Union are

mply revolt

ye ie

UAW sot

te
proud of our record . rere
ing picket lines of all 18 espe
intend to continue nes ail tt
picket lines and to g!V to #!
assistance that we my of
unions who are in neé ;
sistance.” od all
The statement UlB ontradt
unions to remember at Ces,
negotiating time and at nsibilil
that you have a respe .
to insist that cargo race
only by union carriers" ould
unions and their members and
insist that raw materia ghouls
manufactured procucts rriets-
be shipped by union 4 Tagee
In conclusion, Ray | mis
said of the statement
not written to one any Ft
or any organization. abo
ten eG ane to wake uP he
We seriously believe 0

lackadaisical attitude
many in the labor mov
described abores an
legislation such as :
hed in the Rand recome for
tions, will make it impos* if We
us to support each one neat
don’t wake up if

future.”

em
a

<

LABOR SCENE

By Bruce Magnuson

Strike right not divisible

_In our capitalist society work-

ers can be exploited at great
profit by the employing class.
This is not just a racket. It is
the system we live under.

Prices are at an all time high
for the postwar period. Even the
government statistics, which cer-
tainly do not exaggerate the
issue, estimated prices rose by
4.1 percent in 1968. If we add
the 2 percent social development
tax it comes to a 6.1 percent cut
in real income. This year has
been worse than last. The April
cost of living index showed a 1.4
rise in living costs for that one
month alone. Workers’ buying
power is no longer expressed in
the amount of monetary wages
received. 5

In this situation workers are
forced to fight for wage increases
that will restore buying power
and protect gains made. This is
also the only way to make a use-
ful contribution to the fight
against poverty, a fight which
politicians talk about but never
act on.

The scientific and technologi-
cal revolution has brought about

a leap in productivity and the
level of exploitation. At the same
time there is a stagnation and a
strong trend toward deteriora-
tion of living standards for the
workers. The result of this is a
sharper confrontation between
labor and capital.

As monopolies secure greater
economic power for themselves
by means of merger and heavy
concentration, governments be-
come the instrument for re-distri-
bution of more and more of the
national income in favor of big
capital. In this way state mono-
poly capitalism subordinates the
scientific and technological revo-
lution to the law of private pro-
fits. :

Astronomical profits and wealth
accumulate in the hands of the
biggest corporations. So called
“productivity formulas” and
wage “guidelines” merely serve
to increase the economic power
of the monopolies, and to per-
petuate and consolidate monop-
oly control. : :

It is in the face of this on-
slaught on the workers’ living
standards that their struggles

PACIFIC TRIBUNE—MAY 30, 1969—Page 4

? : “

‘tors

take on more militancy.

To block this fight-back, and
pursue the interests of monopoly,
governments are _ introducing,
and have already on their statute
books, restrictive labor legisla-
tion with emphasis on anti-strike
laws and compulsory arbitration.
This is the case with Bill 33
in British Columbia, the unsatis-
factory and repressive labor laws
already in effect in Ontario, laws
which would become intolerable
for labor if the Rand proposals
were added and implemented.
On the federal level there are
the restrictive propositions con-
tained in the Woods Task Force
Report.

Only a year ago, the late Jus-
tice Rand wrote on page 18 of
his report:

“The distribution of total avail-
able goods and services has be-
come an issue that goes to the
roots of democratic society; it
involves social and political fac-
of the highest import-
ance’... .”

Rand was under no illusion
about the real issues involved.
As the Communist Party stated

in its submission to the Rand In-
quiry in May, 1967:

“The main productive proces-
ses in our society are social in
character . . . Private ownership
continues to exercise rights and
powers which it ought no longer
to possess .. .”

Effective resistance to the
anti-labor policies of monopoly
and capitalist governments alike
calls for exactly the kind of co-
ordinated and united action by
the trade union movement that
the membership of Ontario’s
trade unions is developing.

It is precisely such broad de-
mocratic action to block the at-
tempts of governments to impose
anti-strike and compulsory arbi-
tration laws on the labor move-
ment which is needed at this
time.

It is significant that Judge
Walter Little, newly appointed

chairman of Ontario’s Arbitra-

tion Commission comes out flat-
ly in opposition to the right to
strike in the public services.
This is clearly the “rule of mu-
tual accommodation” between
capital and labor, and “the rule
of reasonable restraint” toward

G
the public interest. which wwe
Rand advocated, based of #
absolutely false premis® wee
non-existent equality
employers and workers.

It is the employer, with
power and selfish profit
who cares little what haP
the community and ye ”
talked about “public inte ip’

On the other hand, labors rhe
terest is inseparable 10 rxins
community where the jor"
class constitutes the great ag ie
ity of the population. Lab ent of
terest lies in the advanceM' ore
society as a whole, and lic ip”
fore at one with the PU
terest. : ce
The right to strike, like jgible
and freedom, is not a neg
The right to strike is 1°” ight
tiable. Any attack on t ef y te
in the public service is 0? saul!
thin edge of the wedge tO 9° is,
this right on a universal | of
That is precisely why @ 1
Labor Rights must be @?§
in the laws of the lane |
issue is inseparably tied 4 co®
battle for wages, hours a0"
ditions. ;

se

so
ent, 4
nti-aer {i

net