The Auckland Star: with which are incorparated The Evening News, Morning News and The Echo. SATURDAY, OCTOBER 12, 1907. THE RIGHTS OF LABOUR.

Auckland Star, Volume XXXVIII, Issue 244, 12 October 1907, Page 4

The Auckland Star: with which are incorparated The Evening News, Morning News and The Echo.

SATURDAY, OCTOBER 12, 1907. THE RIGHTS OF LABOUR.

For the came that lacks assistance. For the wrong that needs resistance. Far the future in the distance, And the good that toe can do.

The struggle that is now in progress at Home between the railway companies and their employees involves one of the most important and interesting questions that modern industrialism has been called upon to solve. Shall the wage-earners be permitted to organise themselves into corporate bodies and to negotiate with their employers through the representatives they have chosen? j Theoretically, the right of organisation was conceded to Labour more than a generation ago; but the trade unions : have always felt that it is impossible for them to press their claims or to , secure redress of grievances unless they are allowed to express their views through the delegates or officials whom they have chosen to represent thenviews. The employers, on the other hand, have generally refused to recognise the representatives of the unions, ion the ground that they are usually committed to a policy of factious hostility to Capital, and that they stand as interlopers between masters and men. This is the line taken in the present controversy by the railway companies. The railway directors decline, as they put it, to allow outsiders to interfere with the management of their | affairs; and they have several times refused even to discuss the question with . the unions. Labour, on the other band, I feels that it is fighting for a vital principle, and rather than surrender it the | unions have threatened to call out all the railway employees, and' paralyse | British industry by a general strike. ! Within the last iew days, however, | wiser counsels have prevailed with the | railway companies, and there now seems to be some reasonable prospect that a compromise can be arranged that will enable the employees to discuss their grievances with the -rectors on something like a fair and equitable basis. This much it is probably necessary to say to make our recent cables on this subject intelligible. The point which we wish to emphasise just now is the impracticable tone hitherto adopted by the railway companies in refusing to admit that the employees have a right to some voice in settling the industrial conditions of the work in which they are engaged. It is easy to talk about the "interference" of the unions; but to deny their claim to put their collective views before the employers is to assert either that the workers have no real interest , in the business that they help to carry 1 on, or that their interests are diametric-

ally opposed to those of their employers. P.ither contention is altogether illogical and fallacious; and it is only because the dire—tors of the companies have been gradually driven, to see the force of these arg_n<_ts that they are nejw reiluertantly giving way. But they have resisted so long and so obstinately that they have impressed the wage-earners deeply with the idea that they are not fit guardians of the rights and inter—ts of one of the greatest of England's industrial enterprises, and so we find a strong movement \ being organised at Home in favour of State ownership of the railway system. It must be remembered that this pre> posal does not emanate solely from the so-ejalled "Socialist" wing of the Labour party. It is supported by Lord Brassey and many other eminent publicists who are certainly not led blindfold by the Independent Labourites. The great railway companies have shown themselves to be singularly regardless of national as well as industrial interests; witness the practice against which the Railway Servants' Society has just protested, ofi "penalising British trade by giving pre-1 ferential rates to foreign producers and: manufacturers." The competition for | imported freights has been very keen, charges have been cut low, and the companies have not hesitated to indemnify the-mselves by raising freights enormously against their local customers. This unjust system has done almost as much as Pree Trade to ruin England's pastoral! and agricultural industries; and the obstinate selfishness displayed by the companies in thus prejnng upon the helplessness of the British producer has done more than anything else to rouse the outcry for State control.

There is another interesting development of this railway controversy to whicb. we must briefly call attention. It has been suggested by Mr. Ramsay Mac Donald that if the railway companies absolutely refuse to come to terms with the unions, it will be the duty of Government to summon a speeaal session of Parliament for the purpose ot compelling the directors to arbitrate, and thus to avert a strike. The railway companies have suggestisd that the unions are endeavouring to find excuses for a general strike; and it is important to observe that tha accredited leaders oi Labour are most anxious to save the country from such a calamity. Indeed, so keenly do they realise the injury that, strikes inflict upon Labour, that even those 'who have hitherto contended most resolutely for the right to settle their

own disputes, are now disposed to advocate arbitration, and even to make it. compulsory. Mr. Ramsay Mac Donald is by no means a friend of compulsory arbitration. While he was in the colonies he went so far as to assure our workers that they had lost a great deal by surrendering their right of striking. It is therefore with great satisfaction that we observe Mr. Ramsay Mac Donald openly recanting in favour of the system that the Independent Labour party has so far refused to adopt or to advocate. The strong prejudices entertained against compulsory arbitration at Home have always bdn inexplicable to us. The Board of Trade has the power to appoint arbitrators to decide industrial disputes if required to do so; and j bitter complaints are constantly made that it does not use this right more freely, and that it cannot compel obedience to its recommendations. The want of compulsory arbitration is felt keenly enough in England; but hitherto Labour seems to have regardea it as a cunning device; invented by Capital to secure its own nefarious ends. To have converted Mr. Ramsay Mac Donald on this subject is certainly a great achievement, of which the colonies may reasonably feel proud; and now that compulsory arbitration has been formally taken up by one of the recognised leaders of the Labour movement at Home, we have some hope that industrial warfare, with all its colossal waste and multifarious horrors, will soon become obsolete in England.