Should the Miners Control the Mines?
Maoriland Worker, Rōrahi 12, Putanga 291, 27 Mahuru 1922, Page 3
Mō tēnei niupepa
Should the Miners Control the Mines?
■ .ARGUMENTS IN FAYOUB. response to an invitation from a new Australian period- HP^^it , ,' of Spronounced Tory opinions, tc contribute a 1000-word article on the Hγ stbove question, Mr. A. C. Willis, Sec- PF " r.etary of the Australian. Miners' Federation, wrote as follows: — If the terra "miners" includes managerial an d technical staff, I have no in saying*, Yes, the miners are entitled to control, and should ■control, the mines. The term "control," as used here, must not be confused with, what has ■come to be known as job control, Job control is a method sometimes adopted 3>y employees for the purpose o£ cora- : polling- the management to agree to certain wages or conditions. Control here must be taken to mean control by the' management and the men acting' in harmony to achieve the. best results for themselves and the general community tinder the best condition's the industry can afford with a minimum expenditure on human energy, MINERS , CONTROL NOT SYNDICALISM, Control by the miners does not moan that the miners should own the j mines for the purpose of exploiting them in their own interest; only; that would be syndicalism, and, human nature being what it is, it is Quite ■possible, if not probable, that a syndicate of miners would exploit the rest of the. community just as much as the smaller syndicate of capitalists is_ doing to-day. Although, incidentally, I contend that the miners, who spend their Jives in the industry, should have | a much greater right to own and con- J Irol'the mines than mere capitalists, whose interest in the mines can usually be summed up in the word dividends. I do not think control of the j mines by the miners would be possible tinder private ownership, that is. unless a collective contract could be j made with the present owners under I .Tvhieh the miners, as a whole, would undertake to produce coal into waggons, say at the colliery siding, at a price per ton, and the owner would j •undertake to provide all the capital I necessary for the successful working of the mine. Under a proposal of this ■kind the miners would be responsible < for the fixing aud adjusting- of rates pi pay to the various classes of labour. it would also mean that the employers' organisation would pay to the employees' organisation. one cheque .weekly or fortnightly for the total out-1 inn. The employees' organisation j riyould be entirely responsible for its j •proper dist ri but ion. WOULD ABOLISH SECTIONAL STRIKES. : ' This proposal has many defects, •tmt I am convinced that, if given a fair trial, it would prove to be infinitely preferable to the present system. It would practically abolish sectional 1 strikes, because the onus of adjusting •local differences would be entirely in the hands' of the employees, and if they struck it would be against themselves. The only time a strike might jLake place would be at the time a genera! agreement was being entered into, and the frequency of this danger would, of course, be governed by the •periods for whlcii agreements were made. I believe the elimination of .numerous sectional stoppages, which sire flue in the main to the present system of employment, would mean a saving- to the industry as would allow mueii better payment and conditions fin the industry. It would also lend to 'develop a ' sense of responsibility, amongst the employers as a whole. , MINES MUST BELONG TO ' £'. • COMMUNITY. 1 But, as I remarked .before, I believe this proposal would be at least difficult under private ownership, liencc ■I contend that the coal mines of the country should become the property*)£ the community as a whole, the rates of pay and conditions under which the Snincrs would render service to the •community would theu be determined (between the miners' organisation and representatives of the general "community. But, having made a bargain ■witli the community for the production of coal, the whole responsibility (for the management and control, jmethods of adjusting pay and conditions, should be left entirely with the miners themselves.
.There's nests for rest in "Sleepy 110 - . ■ " ' low." ' ■ 1 Cos?/ cots all white and gold; there's dreamland' days and nights which, follow' . •; ; :■■'■■■ Sheltered from the wintry cold; drowsy, croontime unfailing, . . ' ' r Lullabies which sleep assure , ; %n(L when there's croupy colds p'rei vailing, , I Always Woods' Gi-eat.. Peppermfut
STATE ENTERPRISE RUN ON CAPITALIST LINES. * I further contend that the comparative failure of State enterprise is due to the fact that all State enterprises have, up to the present, been run on .the same lines as ordinary capitalist concerns. That is to say, the employee has een left as a mere wage-earner; he has never been given a voice in the control of the industries in which he in engaged. The miner does not Want State ownership with bureaucratic control; he knows full well that it is impossible to have political democracy without economic-democracy. The miner should control the mines because he spends his working , life in them, whilst the present controllers seldom, •if evet, seer them. : What is more, he knows the mines, he posseses. a vast accumulation of practical knowledge which should "be invaluable in social production,, but which now he . has little or no inducement to use, or, what is more important, under the present system, of control he is more likely to use against his employer than for him. This spirit of hostility will increase rather than diminish as the employee becomes more conscious that he and his family are daily robbed of the major portion of the wealth which he assists Aα creating , , CO-OPERATION WOULD DEVELOP. With the miners controlling the mines a spirit of co-operation would j replace the present spirit of hostility, with incalculable benefit to the general community. ' The managerial staff would be able to work in harmony with all the other employees. At present the. controllers of the mines have to think "dividends," the managerial staff! have to think •dividends," and the employees have to produce ''dividends" or get out. This system lias engendered a spirit of I antipathy and, frequently. '. hatred be{ tween the other; employees and the management. RETURNS WOULD BE' POOLED. j Under the present system of control the selling price o£ coal must be- fixed at a point which allows the less proj fitable collieries to make a normal I dividend. This frequently means that other companies make very large, and sometimes fabuluous, rates of dividend. The miners' wages aud conditions are based upon the ability of the less profitable collieries to make a dividend, whilst the community lias to pay a price for coal quite out of pro| portion to the average cost of production. With the miners controlling - the mines, I contend that their conditions generally could be materially improved, and at the same time the cost of coal to the community could be re. duced. j A NEW ASPIRATION. The demand for the control of industry represents a new aspiration in the working class. It desires to be raised to'the status of economic citizenship. It is no longer content to be regarded as a mere cog in. a machine for the production of wealth. TM.s desire represents a_- spiritual rather I than a material desire. I conclude by expressing the liope that this right and desire will be recognised by Ihosc concerned, and that a way will be found to bring about an intelligent reconstruction of industry based upon this legitimate demand.
