CAMA 4 cee aan nae cemueaweny. ay per 02 per, : igs show the ures ‘on wages, states stacked at the bottom.’ ‘week and $4.99 per” feduced to $169, o Work” ein the?" mment fi itable for 1975 continue the...) d other reckonin: T if $195.97 per an hour in the normal states Me ans ower Wages ght “US: gover igures aval [5 ROURCE! US. Depart Leber, Exphymont and Earlags ay #78. “RI L * The first ti <> trend: averat CASTLEGAR NEWS, Thuraday, Dees living caked Aad Ae al a a ndard of ower our stan really mean rs" the . for anti-union shop laws is the Inde- » ; ae the union! resaure for: alate re ERATION OF LABOUR Bresdway, Vascouvet VST 1X4: G703808 | - t in Canada, tates. On rofita on the tikes and lock-outs and.<< be:bad forthe: Boos late bait bs ploy: isted. Employers. ~ Id drop!" nild find substantial - sly resi ving. -breaking. tin lower: her than theUS. national averege in the ‘anti-union shop states. able to them, they.pay - “| * the benefits but share none’ efits in states where anti- aval ples of workers being forced ! Corporate pi a: hi ‘and related’ groups. In this: province.the ling indent Contractors: ant \d-Businessmen’s Association of 3 in British Columbia? s cleafly stated that any attempt to. It of ‘which would cand unhealthy for of funding and industrial relations climate: The trade” for British | aol enjoy all ‘will. be: vigorou! ha: these measures are aniformy employe! y ‘make. strike They would result “living position of anti-unton shop laws ‘would creata a> ee chaotic and hostile nian shop employees wor ‘from .thalr,“unian' y Igad to confrontations, st ch laws: B.C,‘a overall shop laws in,B.C- ike: sia ‘The: "but they do exist fn some’ Americ Columbia — ‘a group of: extremely right-wing greedy employers whose only. aim is cheap labour.’ .- rievance procedures -Anti-union shop la oductivity ‘— al thermore, there are exam, to take reduced wages and ben + union laws are newly enacted " campaign for rovince’s economy. greements that fall’ behind t Question: Do these laws exist anywhere at present? Question: What would the effect Ge of introducing entl- + Question: Who fs organizing the campaign for, anti-anioo 5: ts ‘Answer! It is interesting to note that the “workers seeking » their’ no union dues. ‘They. main group cal » pat union g Furtl Answer: The. : impose such hiring anti-w lower prt “employers al “ei » without suc! organizations British "answer: :Antianion shop laws do not exis © other hand are significantly - union mover ; “Proponents of n to I sidious employer camps <~ probabl
by, are ‘in: effect.“
Teguldtion for this*common good of thelr ~
“industrial community.-When
ment in that
crossing .,
¢
Faced: with the threat
ers
Overs Cane
ht to Work”
‘ker unions will
wer: wage settlements and lesser.
of experienced
y. coating long-
‘benefits and security they have built
up.aver the years...
the union, which
thet e union’s!
njoy the Wages and
bers end also have
ere a'job. They do:
thi
5, contracta. ates
t and destroy collec-.
the -unlon,“""Right ‘to.
n movement must be defeated. a
who are ‘“freeloading" or
won or that strikes might
‘
vy.
ion members to. work alongside
b
‘a worker. accepts‘ employ-
jituation where a pool
ion, she/he is'no longer’a
ntation vote. So the principle
nion: shop laws
roded. The'result is that union
frea to seek employment else-
rime candidates for
ht be
‘antee work
loyees
ally antiunion shop laws: ‘They
het.a3‘a result of this situation --
existing jobs or guar
t Is instead a member of the com-
the rules made by the majority in ~
if a person does not accept the -
ho will refuse to join
can result in destroying the union entire!
by refusing to join’the union, ere,
time employees their
on the backs of those who do belong to
i
‘The reasoning is that weal
dustry, nor ‘would ‘they improve
pt lo
ide
“Right to Workers" 61
fringe benefits won by the union mem!
nt to consider Is that when ‘an employer end
nshipd
le
in collective
ndhiste(¥Frlatla
plant or opersti
> + Answer: ~By:forcing unl
‘by ‘Right to Workers", a union's bargaining ©:
‘the trade union movement
tive bargaining.
“Right: to Work". laws?
non-union emp!
the wages and benefits won
Workers’: create a si
> employees exist who are p!
movement?
ira:are forced to accept. poore!
In the longer run, employers can adopt policies of only
Ynes or breaking strikes.
ition is substantially o
be’
Posi
membe:
tht to Workers"
Rigl
getting « free ric
‘broken,
+ the union.:
Question: How'do these [awa weaken the trado union
Answer: The motives behind these laws ‘are to weaken, =. ©
company profits will in the short run improve.
that employer lock-outs migl
hiring employees wl
majority view, they ard
fringe benefita’—and 1!
detached individual; bu
munity and governed by
where:
ba forced,to ace
“Question: Then why do people campalgn for’ so-called”
ifthe unfon loses the repress:
int
that community. Again,
“eying down &
* A second pol
would, aid
+ picket
t to Work’ laws are re
safeguard
-esponsil
health.
2
merica
t's keep A
ble, good wage, in
e
wt
Right to Work"’
ons an
ht-for-
h Columbia, a
jobs,
ly.
province's econom
ken the trade u
- so-called Righ
it ts unfair. and un:
© In summary.then,
grat
e
Ww
job. However, Right
“a
ie dd ine tecstoncat
wea
ls to expose. the big lie
ht to Work"’, to present
say
“Rig
ic to compel someone to belong toa
om
its true nature and intent, and to explain in a stralg!
- ward fashion why the trade union movement opposes this.
do not create ne
“not attract socia
union. Is that true? .
© The.
mean?
right of every wor!
‘Right to Worker
te
~ that a union
.) democrat
in the world. Yet right now, in Britisl
pt
salted in our fiation basing Soe ot
fallyorchestrate -
Work".
‘The purpose of this
ahi the fanciful slogan
Question: What docs the = spighn 10 Work" really
Weaker Un
proposal. ‘,
Answer: No, itiat
°. Answer: The tarm is deceptive because It implies the
inet ‘ker toa
—What does
estas ts
NIT ET
_, (UDIRECTIONS
2° @§NFCFOOTBALL “707777 fo +7
NBG sports will televise an NFL
‘Andy Gritfith, 5 . game today. However, the exact : bouse
Shelley Wintere, Donnie Day. me a teams were not announced at i : : Kounci of Krussde 1 fat target
while eres i ~ gerbe for ; The Incredible but true story of
Buford Pusser, the ferociously
honest Tennessee sheriff whose
exploits have become. legendat fi
continues in ‘Walking Tall Part td J
io be ebrondcaat Dec, 2 on ‘The | 2 ae OF FAMILIES :(CAP-
lay Night Movie. ' The Great | y
The 1975 movie begins exact! ce Steet en occ tiers
where its predecessor “walking Geko ‘opposite, idee: in tho
Tall’ left off: the determined violent trolley etrike of 1005. A
Pusser (Bo Svenson, in photo) Scab: motorman John ace
recovers from the severe wounds covered by photo} Sarah
he suffered in the ambush that tattrep.osua) eres
killed his wife and relentlessly | ,.., @WLORNGDOM
hunts down. the gunmen |. 7% SoMOM sat Parke 1977 Tut
responsible. Hargrave, Ruth Gordon, Story of