Rhetoric no substitute for principled debate says Phillips

IWA paper's attack on Trib

The June edition of the Western
Canadian Lumber Worker leaves
me with the impression that the
editor is in sharp disagreement
with the Pacific Tribune, to put it
mildly.

It doesn’t surprise me, because
that paper is the organ of the In-
ternational Woodworkers of
America, Western Regional
Council #1, of which Jack Munro is
the president. Last November,
when I was at the Penticton con-
vention of the British Columbia
Federation of Labor, I found
myself behind Munro one day’ in
the line-up for coffee. I said ‘‘Hello
Jack”’ and he turned around and
gave me a blast loud enough to be
heard in the IWA board room on

- Commercial Drive in Vancouver.
“So it’s you Phillips!” he said. “I
want you to know I’m going to get
you for those articles you write
about the IWA. When I can’t sleep

at night and I want some garbage.

to read, I read your articles!”
“Thank you Jack” I replied,
“Ym glad I can say something
about you I can’t say about some of
my best friends.’’ ‘‘What’s that?”
he replied suspiciously. I put on my
best smile before I replied: “You
at least read the Tribune regularly

and carefully. That’s more than I
can say about some of my friends
who normally agree with me.” As I
recall, he walked away muttering
something like “‘I’ll fix you. . . I’ll
fix you. . . you just wait and see!”’

Which brings me back to the
June edition of the IWA paper. The
lead editorial on the back page
runs to some 500 words, spread
over two columns in large type and
dominating the page. The editor, it
is obvious, wants every reader to
know that his paper disagrees with
the Pacific Tribune and with a
specific article analysing the
significance of the resignation of
Len Guy as secretary-treasurer of
the B.C. Federation of labor
(Labor Comment-19 May 1978).

According to the IWA editor, the
Tribune article used ‘‘Guy’s
resignation as an excuse to attack
certain labor leaders and the New
Democratic Party.”

It is not my intention to bore
Tribune readers by repeating the
main points in that Tribune article,
except to say that a significant
number of people in the trade union
movement, at all levels and in-
cluding members of the New
Democratic Party, share some,
most or all of the opinions therein. |

The headline over the article

seems even more appropriate to

me after reading the IWA rebuttal: -

CONTINUING CLASH ON
POLICY SEEN IN GUY’S
RESIGNATION.

The editor pays me a personal
tribute of having been ‘around
politics for a long time,”’ for which
I thank him. As a matter fof fact, I
have been around long enough to
realize that the defensive tone of

LABOR
COMMENT

BY JACK PHILLIPS

the editorial is a sure sign that the
growing influence of the Pacific
Tribune in the debate over policy in
the trade union movement is
beginning to worry the IWA editor
and some of his friends in the
leadership of the union.

However, I am hopeful that as
more members of the IWA become
readers of the Pacific Tribune, the
policies and opinions expressed by
this paper will receive the con-

UFAWU Seven verdict down Aug. 31

Continued from page 1 _
Considerable debate in the trial
has centred around the technical
point of whether the Combines
proceedings was an “‘inquiry”’ or

an “examination’’. Even the

prosecutor Arthur McLennan, |

earlier had admitted that he was
confused over what exactly was
taking place at the Combines
proceedings. Rankin insisted that
if there was any doubt about the
nature of the offense, or about what
was being impeded, if anything, a
dismissal was called for. Neither
was there any evidence that
Combines commissioner Frank
Roseman had _ called the
proceedings to order in a formal
way when the alleged impeding
took place, he added, and in the
absence of such evidence it could
not be argued that any impeding
took place.

The prosecution’s case against
the Seven was based on a dic-
tionary definition of the word
“impede’’ and the implicit
argument that a conspiracy to
impede had existed.

> aed

Members of the Canadian Food and Allied

McLennan complained about
UFAWU members ‘‘parading”’
outside the Pacific Centre
December 7, 1976, and alleged
“tussle”, ‘‘scuffle’” and ‘verbal
exchanges” outside the hearing
room. The prosecutor called the
unionists contention that the closed
hearings would have _ been

prejudicial to the interests of the

union as “supremely arrogant.”

McLennan was sharply rebuked
by Rankin for his statements about
UFAWU secretary George
Hewison being ‘‘arrogant’’, when
he told the Combines com-
missioner Frank Roseman at the
time of the alleged incidents that
he ‘‘feared the dismemberment of
my union.”’ It was not arrogant to
say that, Rankin said. Hewison and
the others acted as though they
were in a bargaining session and
they put forward their position as
forcefully as possible, and were
completely within their rights to do
‘so. “If one feels that he has certain
rights, it is not arrogant to assert
those rights,’ Rankin declared.

Y CANADIAN FOOD

The defense also pointed out that
the other alleged incidents the
prosecution raised’ including the
demonstration outside and the
altercations and verbal exchanges
between the unionists and
“Uniguard” employees, all took
place outside of the hearing room.
Rankin stressed further that there
was ‘no evidence of any physical
violence, other than an assult
which union members say was
made by a guard on some of their
group.

Hume agreed with many of
Rankin’s points and at one point
stated that his decision would be
based on the incidents inside the
hearing room only and on the ‘‘sum
total’’ of the unionists actions.

Hume will have nearly two
months to make up his mind about
the evidence presented at the trial.
Much of the evidence was
technical, but there is no doubt that
the decision will be a political one
which will have a large impact on
the future of the UFAWU and of the
entire trade union movement.

Be é note

Workers’ Union at Canada Packers’ plant on Terminal

Avenue in Vancouver are among 4,000 Canada Packers’ workers locked out across Canada. Following a
strike June 19 by 2,000 Swifts Canadian workers for parity in pensions and other benefits with U.S.
workers, the packinghouses locked out all CHAWU members in an effort to break the strike and forcea
weak agreement on all workers. CFAWU members picketed Canada Packers’ head offices in Toronto
June 28 to protest the lockout.

—Fred Wilson photo

sideration they deserve: Neither =

the IWA paper nor the Tribune can
claim a monopoly on ideas in the
discussion that is unfolding. What
is required is open debate and
dialogue.

The Western Canadian Lumber
Worker makes three mainpoints
which I shall deal with. Firstly,
‘that the Tribune, while ‘naming
Guy as a strong supporter of the
NDP, forgot “‘that he also held an
almost blind hatred for Barrett and
the NDP government.’”’ Secondly,
that his public criticism of the NDP
government”’ played no small part,
a number of people believe, in
leading to the ultimate defeat of
the government.” Thirdly, ‘‘with
Guy out of the picture, the opposing
factions in the Federation have an
excellent opportunity to solve their
differences.”

Firstly, let’s get the facts
straight about Len Guy’s so-called

blind hatred of the Barrett, NDP.

government. It is on record that all
of his public criticisms were in line
with Federation policies as
adopted in convention or by the
Executive Council. In many cases,
because the door to the cabinet was
closed to the Federation, public
criticism was the only way to make
its weight felt on matters vitally
affecting the trade
movement.

But let us go back a bit further, to
the 1970 provincial convention of
the NDP. There were 12 members

~of the NDP in the provincial
legislature at that time and they
constituted the official opposition.
This group submitted a signed
statement to the convention, from
which two quotations are ap-
propriate:

“9. We believe we must be free
to criticize the labor movement
where we feel it justified and
necessary. Similarily we believe
the labor movement should feel
free to criticize ourselves where
they feel it justified and
necessary.”

“10. That is not to say that we
shouldn’t try to resolve our dif-

ferences when we can outside the
public arena. But our genuine.

differences expressed publicly
could well strengthen us both.” -

. (My emphasis: JP)

At this stage, the editor of_the
Lumber Worker should ask
whether or not the leadership of the
NDP has seriously considered the
valid criticisms raised by the
Federation during the Barrett
administration. Calling Len Guy
down and calling for ‘‘fractions”’ to
bury the hatchet is no substitute for
a principled examination of honest
differences.

The closing words of the caucus
document are most significant:
“As a group that hopes to govern
this province for the benefit of all
the people, our view must reflect
the broader public interest rather
than the view of one single sector of
society. Significant as _ the
organized labor sector is, the
public interest must prevail.”’

After that convention, which

une answered ©

union -

Saes

elected Barrett to the party
leadership to succeed Tom Berge!
the new leader held a press COD
ference at which he said: ‘I have
always believed that the ideal

structure of the party would havé —

as its ultimate goal total individu
membership in the party.” He als0
said.this: “I’ve said before thal
Premier Bennett would take over
the telephone company (B.C. Tel:)
before we would.” z

Obviously, the differences
between the Barrett leade
and the leadership of B.C:
Federation of jabor go much
deeper than the editorial in the
Lumberworker suggests, touc
as they do on the vital interests of
the working class who constitute 4
majority of the population and 0?
the relationships betwee?
organized labor and a_ socia
democratic party led in the mail’
by middle class social democrats
who are both attracted to and
repelled by the labor movement.
These differences also extend 1
the question of the role of the
working-class as the leading force
in uniting all democratic peop*
against the monopolies, a
which the Barrett leadership did
not and does not recognize.

Secondly, to suggest that the

public criticism of the Barrett
government brought about its
defeat is to beg the question, ©
replace deep-going analysis
superficial rhetoric. %
Thirdly, to suggest that with Guy
out of the picture the opposing
“factions” can unite is to forget

that fundamental difference’ -

existed before Len Guy took ovel

the top post in the Federation and

continue to exist to this day.

In the opinion of this writer,
Lumber Worker would perform 4
very useful service, for its readet>
and for the labor movement as 2

whole, if it would publish a well

balanced review of what the
Barrett government achievé
during its term of office, dealing
with both the positive and negative
features. Such a review should d
factually with the issues aroul
which Barrett called the election &
1975 that led to the defeat of his
government, his timing and thé
gang-up of big business to bring thé
Scoreds back. As part of thal
review, the criticism of the B.Y
Federation of Labor should be
examined _ objectively
dispassionately. af
If such a discussion got undef
way, it would certainly play —
major role in uniting the B.C.
Federation of Labor and in 1a
the basis for the kind of unity th
is necessary to defeat the Soc
in the next provincial election. |
The labor movement would
emerge much the stronger al!
much more united from such
wide-open, self-critical debate:
Instead of a lot of rhetoric wit)
Dave Barrett as the “good guy
and Len Guy as “the bad guy,” !
us examine the facts, the issue
and the principles that go to
root of this controversy.

PACIFIC

Back the paper that fights for labor —
— SUBSCRIBE NOW |

Clip and mail to: F

101 - 1416 COMMERCIAL DR., VANCOUVER, B.C. V5L 3X9 |

Name. 2 esse Pie eo es

Address sos a ye apn ee pe has og Sah ie

2k ETA GRANITE SE
PACIFIC TRIBUNE—July 7, 1978—Page

and M3