STRIKE ISSUE

Auckland Star, Volume LXXIII, Issue 233, 2 October 1942, Page 2

STRIKE ISSUE

INQUIRY NEEDED

PREVENTING TROUBLE

(No. 3) At any time a strike or a lockout is an infringement of community rights. Because of a dispute between two parties the rest of the community has to suffer some inconvenience and actual loss. In wartime, when the life of the nation is dependent upon the co-operative working of all sections of the community the strike or lockout is a calamity. Whatever the circumstances it cannot be excused.

The Waikato coat strike was inexcusable; its prolongation over a period of three weeks with disastrous effect upon the whole community's war effort was even more inexcusable. In two previous articles it has been shown that while the miners, as the party who precipitated the dislocation, must take the bulk of the blame, there were also other aspects to be considered. There was obstinacy on both sides of the original dispute and there was dilatoriness and muddlement in the handling of the negotiations.

How could the original stoppage have been prevented and how could it have been stopped before the war effort suffered so expensively? Those arc the two most pertinent questions. Avenues Were Open The original militant action could have been prevented by a realisation on both sides that coal production was vital to the nation. If either party was obstinate in its refusal to compromise, the other party could have made a temporary sacrifice.

If the fault was on the side of the employers the men could have carried on working under protest, at the same time demanding of the Government that the dispute be settled quickly by tribunal and compensation paid for the sacrifice temporarily involved. If the fault was on the miners' side the employers could have paid out under protest pending settlement by tribunal and a later recovery of the money involved. Action taken in that way by either party would have shown a practical realisation of the needf? of the country and a willingness to make sacrifico-to see that those needs were met.

Neither party took that course and a strike developed necessitating prompt Government action. The Government had the power to force an immediate return to work. Both sides had considered sectional interests above the interests of the country. Neither deserved special consideration. Since neither had voluntarily given way to the national need compulsion should have been used.

The Government should (1) have ordered the miners to return to work immediately; (2) have ordered the mine owners to pay the money involved; (3) set up a competent tribunal to determine in public hearing the rights and wrongs of the original dispute; and (4) on the findings of that committee taken what action seemed necessary to meet the 'case.

It might be held that this action would have penalised the oM&ers, who would be the only ones to lose materially in the initial steps. That is not correct. If the miners were proved to have been "going slow" the money could have been recovered from future earnings by Government order. or it could have been recovered from the union which had supported their claim.

Compulsory Self-discipline

How could the miners be punished if the case was proven against them? The best plan would probably have been to make the union meet the costs of the tribunal, to pay out the monev which had to be repaid to the owners, and to pay a fine that would he felt by all members of the union. The miners causing the dispute through their action could then be submitted to discipline by their own union.

If, on the other hand, it was found that the mine-owners had been at fault, the costs of the action made necessary should be borne by them and a substantial fine imposed.

Such action would mean that before any dispute was created by either party a full examination of the circumstances would be made and there would be no rush to take extreme action. It would mean a selfimposed discipline.

The outstanding fact that has emerged from the Waikato dispute, and from former industrial disputes also is that it is impossible for the Government to enforce the Strike and Lockout Regulations, 1939. and to maintain production also. When the 182 miners, charged with a breach of the regulations, were sentenced by the Court the Government was immediately placed in an impossible position. If it carried out the sentence imposed by the Court it would merely, and at the very least, lose the coal production of those men for a further month.

Precipitate, strong action in this regard would not have ended the strike; that was the opinion of those who were watching the position closely. It might have extended it. Logically, all the miners in the field would have to be charged and similarly sentenced. What good would that do in restoring and increasing coal production? And, conceivably, the trouble might not have ended there. To Wreck or to Build? It seems that a minority, providing they are essential workers, and numerically strong, can, by irresponsible action, wreck the whole war effort. That has to be faced. Industrial peace and solid, concentrated industrial war effort can be obtained only with the willing co-operation of all who make up our democracy. While there are sections that are irresponsible it is necessary that there should be discipline. That discipline can best be imposed by those upon whom the country is relying for its industrial war effort. Employers and the employees should each police their fellows.

That discipline must be self-im-posed and self-regulated. A democratic Government can exercise its powers of compulsion only with the support of the whole community, and the willing co-operation of every member of the community.

In considering the actual case of the Waikato dispute it would be valuable if an inquiry were made by the Government into every dispute that had developed in that field in the past two years. Those who should know state that by far the great majority have concerned the Pukemiro colliery. It was learned, for instance, that in one period of seven weeks the union secretary was called to that colliery on 17 occasions to negotiate concerning minor disputes. An inquiry might find that there was a pin-pricking tendency on one side or the other. Certainly there was considerably more behind the recent dispute than appeared on the surface.