THE UNITED FEDERATION OF LABOUR'S POLICY ON STRIKES.

Auckland Star, Volume XLIV, Issue 196, 18 August 1913, Page 2

THE UNITED FEDERATION OF LABOUR'S POLICY ON STRIKES.

(To-the Editor.) Sir, —In yonr issue of the 15tK inst appears a. letter from Mr. P. 11. Hickey, secretary of the above Federation, in which he seeks to make clear that the constitution has been misrepresented or misunderstood. A3 a. matter of fact, the sand Federation is becoming too well understood to snit the supporters of it. If there is any misrepresentation it is that which is being practised by Mr. Hickey and other backers of the United Federation of Labonr. A very cunningly devised attempt ia being made to induce the workers to think thai the Federation is really out for peace. The clauses of the constitution which' refer to strikes are being presented not as a whole btrt with certain , reservations, and it is sought to show ' that the pnrpose is to limit or prevent j strikes from taking place. If this was * the real meaning of the constitution I should be glad, but a fiiTl review will show that the new combination is for * war purposes, with the strike local, ' general and national" as the weapon of * common use. ' Professor Mills, speaking at the recent £ Unity Congress, said: "The complaint is made that this preamble carried with it * the idea that the Trades Union Federation that is to be_created is to be a strik- s ing organisation. Yes, let it be stated £ plainly. It is to be a striking organisa- ( tion." (Page 34 of the Official Report.) ' Now, Mr. Hills way one of the committee that framed the constitution, and that < was his plain statement of what it means 1 —"a striking organisation." It is of no < use Mr. P. H. Hickey writing that "it I safeguards at every point the possibili- t tips of an irresponsible outburst," if, as j Mr. Mills said, "it is to be a striking I organisation." The strikes may be either 1 spontaneous or premeditated, what the people want to know is, "whether this 3 Federation is out for strikes." ] The clauses Mr. Hiekey quotes deal with some of the general powers of the National Industrial Departments, and of the National Executive, bat he has left j out, the clauses that specifically deal with j strikes. ] This constitution has been so drafted that it is only by taking the whole of it together that anyone can get a clear view of its purpose and methods. The last paragraph of the article (vi.), headed "Strikes," should properly have been placed first, because it is a declaration of what the Federation purposes doing. It reads thus: '•The L'nited Federation of Labour will employ the strike weapon local, general, or national, whenever the circumstances demand tfuch action. In the event of a loek-ont or authorised strike the lull strength of the Federation of Labour shall be at the call of the National Executive in support of the section affected." Surely, if that is to be read with any common sense at all, it must be taken to mean that the Federation will use the local (i.e., sectional strike, the general strike and the national strike. This is the first time, I believe, in the history of New Zealand that a Labour Federation has distinctly declared that it "will employ" the weapon of the general strike. After declaring for the strike, "loaJ. general and national," the other cla.uses simply define how it is to (Mr McLaren heTP quotes from the constitution several clauses relating to strikes, which we omit from considerations of space. He then proceeds: —) Itomembexing that it is laid down plainly that "the United Federation of Labour will employ the stsike weapon local, peneral, or national, whenever the circumstances demand such action;" that the branches must consult the head body: that such oonsnltation is, "unreservedly"; that the power of the entire Federation is "at the call of the National Executive;" I think Mr. Hickey is probably right to this extent that the aim is to prevent "sudden outbursts." The whole truth, however, is not in that .statement, for whilst effort is made to prevent sutldon outbursts the plan ia laid to involve all the workers in one big ffcneral strike at the call of the Ivaticmal Executive. Mr. Hickey may regard tliat a.s a responsible outburst if hft likes, but I regard it as the most irresponsible, maddest and most destructive propo-=-il cvrr submitted to the workers of Xcw Zealand. Mr. Hickey lias quoted clause 1 of Article V., and clause 2 of Article XVII. to show that tlie referendum is recognised in th« constitution. These clauses, however, only provide for a general referendum over the whole membership of the Federation; they do not in the least allow of a local union, local department, or national department respcctivelv, taking a referendum before being " called npoii to "down tools." The curions feature even or this general referendum is that the National Executive (consisting probably of twelve to fifteen men) can Exercise fhc initiatve, but of the rank and file of the Federation it is required that the petition must be supported '"by not less than live bodies, together reproeeattng a total membership of not Jess than 2.0?K) persons, and signed by 8,000 financial members," befoTe a referendum is taken. If 2,000 members are required for the initiation of a referendum, then llv aaiional executive of 12 to 15 should n.ii.

be held equal to 2,000. They are all individuals with individual judgments. I think we know the constitution.—l am, etc., D. McLAREN, Dominion Organiser United Labour parry. (To the Editor.) Sir, —In your issue of the. ISth, Mr. ECickey states: "It would appear that a deliberate attempt was being made to prejudice the minds of the workers," etc., against the organ.isation of which he is secretary. This is to be repudiated, as the critics he hints at have held honorary positions in the I—thour movement at the time he was in short frocks, and do so to-day. Their only inducement and hope is to try to improve the social conditions of the actual workers, in which they each of them count one. He tries very laboriously to read into the clauses of the Unity scheme interpretations that do not exist therein. 1 must state again that the strike clause places all power unreservably in the hands of the executive. The official organ, of which Mr. —lickey is sub-editor, re-published from the "Star" Mr. Murdock's letter, which stated: "Might is right, and the battles would be fought out on the job." This approval of the strike policy Mr. Hlckey now wishes to repudiate. He also states that a referendum can be brought about by not less than rive unions, on a requisition signed by two thousand financial members. Now, sir, most unionists have passed the baby age, and know that the machinery, being in tlie hands of the officials, the crisis will have passed before any union can move to action. There are many chmses. financial and otherwise, which deprive unions of the right to control their own -usiness. but the limited space in tho "Star" prevents a. full discussion of the whole constitution. The new Federation—a Socialist propaEramla. association, and not an industrial body—is simply the old Federation under another name. That it has blundered throughout its existence is patent to any mair, and at great monetary and other gTeater costs to the workers, without any tangible benefits. Tlie new constitution is unsound, unwieldy, and unworkable, and when, by the ballots of the unions, it has been turned down. _n.other eons-ti-tution will be formulated to suit—not the aJiarehieal conditions of America, but the social conditions of Maorila-ncl to-day.—l am. etc.. G. McKNTGHT. Ellerslie.