bor Front

\ By WILLIAM KASHTAN

Changes in the economy and in the composition of the working
class is inevitably pushing to the fore the necessity for changes in
the structure of the trade union movement. Historically, trade
union forms of organization reflected the divisions of labor arising
from capitalist production techniques and capitalist development.

The craft unions arose at one stage of development and when
they refused to conform to changes in production
techniques, industrial unionism arose as
protective forms of organization for the unskilled
and semi-skilled workers in the mass production
industries.

No one at this stage can state with certainty
what further changes in trade union structures
may be necessary arising from automation—
what skills will be eliminated, what new skills
will be required. But even today, before auto-
mation has as yet taken on full flesh and blood,
we see a continuing process of change in that
regard in a number of industries.

At the same time the previous, sharply-defined differences:
between craft and industrial unionism tend to be blurred as more
and more of the craft unions are compelled to take on the character
and form of the craft-industrial unions.

* * *

Alongside this process, other processes are also at work.
Monopoly has been advancing by leaps and bounds, stimulated
further by state monopoly capitalism and using its great*power
to curb labor’s rights.

As against this great concentration of power and the united front
of monopoly, trade union forms of organization still operate as of
yore and tend to become obstacles towards effectively uniting all
the forces of the working class in each given industry.

In most industries there are at least two different unions
while in some there are three, four and five different unions.
Monopoly prefers this state of affairs. In fact it not only prefers
it but works to bring it about so as to artificially divide the workers
and feather its own nest.

Events are compelling unions more and more to examine this
problem and to seek ways and means of overcoming unnatural
divisions which play into the hands of monopoly.

This is being given an impetus to by yet another factor—the
rising national sentiment of the Canadian people, including the
working class, reflected in the widespread insistence on Canadian
trade union sovereignty and national trade union autonomy.

* * *

The ability of the Canadian trade union movement to become
masters in its own house will in large measure, be determined by
the extent in which unions in given industries unite, merge or
federate.

Not least, the changes in the composition of the working class,
which this column noted last week, likewise compels changes in
trade union structure, in organizational policy and in emphasis.

* Is there any doubt that with almost 39 percent of the working
force composed of women, that particular emphasis needs to be
given by the trade union movement to this area of activity? Is it
enough now to only emphasise the fight for equal pay for equal
work or to integrate this demand with all those questions arising
from the fact that a growing body of women constitute a permanent
part of the working class? ‘

* Is there any doubt about the need for an organizational policy,
flexibly applied, which can result in an all out drive to organize the
unorganized in the service industries and white collar fields?

* Is there any doubt about the need to seek out ways and means
of strengthening the unity of unions in every industry so as to
advance theeconomic, legislative and political aims of the workers,
and thereby create a truly democratic basis upon which to achieve
one union in every industry?

These are matters which require full debate in the trade union
movement, and not only debate, but the formulation of policies
which can help it to advance ever more vigorously in this period.

HAD NOT BEEN CAUGHT IN OUR CRIMINALCONSTIRACT«

Fi + « d or Sets Db in 4 ae eee
eprtxtis eee i” ‘ Tass & 5

PUBLIC ACTION URGED TO. PUSH SOCREDS

Throne Speech fails to : :
meet needs of province

. ©The Speech from the Throne
last Thursday shows that unless
the people of B.C. take up the
fight to compel the government
to act on many vital issues before
the public very little will come
from the present session,’’ said
B.C. Communist Party organizer
Charles Caron this week.

Commenting further on the
Throne Speech Caron Said:

*“As we anticipated the Speech
from the Throne held nothing of
any significance for the welfare
of the people—nothing but vague
promises. Even the exposure of
their scandalous attitude towards
social welfare conditions failed to
move them. Their callous in-
difference to public needs is

convincingly displayed towards
municipal aid, education require-
ments, health and welfare ser-
vices. Against that, deep concern
is shown for monopoly interests,
particularly U.S. monopolies.
*«The Speech from the Throne
takes for granted the ratification
of the the Columbia Treaty. It
is interesting to watch the unholy
alliance between the Socreds and .
Liberals to ram through the rat-
ification of the Treaty. Not once
has the Bennett government
placed this matter before the
Legislature. The Vancouver Sun
(mouthpiece of the Liberal Party)
in a most barefaced way, stated
that since the Liberals had a
majority in the External Affairs

CAPITAL COMMENTS:

Lots of glitter, but
little for people

By ERNIE KNOTT,
Victoria
Well, now that the pomp and
glitter of the opening ceremony
is over with, (at the taxpayers
expense), lets see if there is any-

_ thing new for the little man in

that frothey 3500 word throne
speech. Precious little!

Boiled down in plain words, the
government, after much self-
praise says in effect, ‘‘we Social
Credit ministers are responsible
for B.C.’s good: times and we
intend to carry on business as
usual. We are going to grant a
few small reforms like removing
tolls and cutting electricity rates
and continue the fire-sale of our
resources to the U.S., and our
latest and most successful saleis
that of the Columbia River.’’

Not a word on U.S. nuclear
weapons at Comox, nothing new
by way of tax relief for our hard
pressed municipalities, no new
expanded aid for education, noth-
ing new (except further study)
for social welfare which is in
crises.

And what has the NDP opposi-

- tion to offer in these opening
days? Again, precious little. Mr.
Strachan, Her Majesty’s. loyal
opposition leader, who can think

_ of no better alternative program
than to call for a Hansard, has
confined himself to the role of
‘critic and asking questions.

In contrast to his federal col-
legues, Herridge and Douglas
who are fighting a gallant battle
on nuclear weapons and the Col-
umbia, he has given upand called
the Columbia ‘‘a fait accompli’’.
But he does have something new.

A new gaudy waistcoat — and it
is primrose?

But there is something new in
the throne speech. It is the pro-
posal to form a new B.C. Bank
financed out of the peoples money
and private capital with the gov-
ernment holding a minority posi-
tion on the board of directors.

A lively debate is developing
pro and con on this. Whose
interest will the bank serve?
Will it serve the same interests
as the present banks are or will
it be a genuine instrument for
helping finance the industrial
development of B.C.?

Could it be used in the future
by a progressive government to
bring under public ownership big
U.S. lumber trusts, or B.C. tele-
phones, etc.? Could it be used
to help finance exports to under-
developed countries who need
long term credits?

Students of political economy
are aware that while the mech-
anics of state monopoly capital-
ism takes on various forms, in
essence it boils down to the
system of gathering and sub-
ordinating (in this case through
a minority position on the board
of directors) the financial re-
sources of the state and the people
in the interests of and for the
use of monopoly.

In Quebec, Lesage is collaring
the pension funds together with
private capital for development
of monopoly industry and plans
are afoot for a development fund
in Alberta.

Seen in this light maybe the
B.C. Bank proposal is not so
new after all.

Committee, the Committee woul
recommend ratification of ul
Treaty by the House of Commons

‘In line with this conspira€
the Sun is most active in looking
under every rock and ledge for ul
kind of creature it can quote
favoring the Treaty. ; q

‘‘Again our Premier was
found wanting at this Session
the Legislature.

“He came forward with anotht
gradiose plan. This time it is

new bank. A bank for what p
pose? Mr. Bennett hurried!
made it clear that his new ba
has nothing to do with the n
bank being established by M
Coyne.

“We recall that Mr. Coym
was dismissed as governor of thi

Bank of Canada because Hi :
opposed U.S. monopoly’s in =
creasing domination of Canada m
Mr. Bennett, without directl i
saying so, makes certain that ae
he is not associated with Mf
Coyne, and understandably 9° l
because his policies have b as
diametrically different. q
‘Undoubtedly the new bank
policy will follow the Soc
government’s policy of further
the control of U.S. monopoly if
terests over British Columbia
‘We as a party would welcom 2
the establishment of a new bal
in British Columbia by th! th
government and under its contr =
Such a bank could provide 10 st
interest loans to government
small business and individual st
and be primarily directed t 7
wards financing the creation of Sth
complex of secondary industrié th
to provide jobs and revenue f
the province. Such a bank cow pr

protect the public against pr
datory financial institutions t
See LEGISLATURE, pg. 7

Sah

CHARLES CARON, B.C. Commun
Party organizer, who this w
charged Throne Speech failed
meet the problems of the peop’

Make gasoline sale public
utility, urged in Alberta

The Alberta Automotive Re-
tailers’ Association, which rep-
resents the province’s service
station operators, submitted a
brief to the cabinet last week
which proposed that the sale
of gasoline should be looked on
as a public utility.

The province’s service station
operators called for the setting
up of a royal commission be-
cause ‘‘the increasing control by
a handful of giant international
companies over all phases of the
production and marketing of an
essential commodity”? is against
the public interest.

In calling for the royal com-
mission the AARA charged that
most service station operators

“are in a ‘‘captive’’ position be-
cause of the controls exerted

‘

over them by the oil companies
and can’t fight the high prices.

The brief said the royal com-
mission should be asked to find
out why brand name service sta-
tions are charged ‘‘anartificially
higher price’’ for gasoline than
discount stations. It charged that
brand-name stations are being
over-charged so other customers
of the oil companies can be
under-charged.

Public demand for a royal
commission into the operation of
oil companies in Alberta follow-
ed on the case of an’Edmonton
service station operator who was
forced to close his business by
Shell halting delivery of gas and
associated products to him.

The service station operator
ran a 24-hour station under con-

re

January 31, 1964—PACIFIC TRIBUNE—P.

tract with Shell. He applied fol
a change in his city license t
change to a 12-hour station be~
cause the all-night operation wa9
breaking him. :

Shell refused the operator per:
mission to allow the change an?
when he went over to 12-houl
operation Shell cracked down 0?
him. The case went to court
which ruled in favor of Shell
on the grounds that a contrac
was a contract. The court ruliné
had the effect of making al
service station operators cap-
tives of the oil companies.

It’s also likely that the deman
for a royal commission in B.
had some effect too in givill
rise to protest against the e%
cesses of the oil monopolies:

=