WHY A UNION FIGHTS THE UNION OF UNIONS

Press, Volume LXXXIII, Issue 25082, 14 January 1947, Page 6

WHY A UNION FIGHTS THE UNION OF UNIONS

WATERSIDE, DISPUTE

[By an Industrial Correspondent of •’The Press.”]

Wellington, January , IS —As the national executive of the New Zealand Federation of Labour has indicated, much is at stake for the Labour movement in the waterfront dispute. The extraordinary conference of delegates tq the federation, called for January 21, will have a significance reaching beyond immediate issues, on the waterfront, , „ . . In challenging the Government and the leadership of the Federation of Labour the Waterside Workers' Union has brought forward for decision isspes which must in 3 n y. 5 av ® been threshed out within the Labour movement in 1947, These issues involve much more than the guaranteed wage on the waterfront, or the watersiders tactics in seeking its extension, The questions now involved can be considered to ID’ elude fbe measure of influence which tfie trade unions may retain in the government of the country in three years, the future of the stabilisation policy, and the leadership of industrial labour, to say nothing of the Labour Government’s stability and its prospect of retaining office beyond 19 The conference may even lead, if not very carefully directed, to the disaffiliation of some unions from the federation, and the setting up of two distinct factions within the Labour be remembered that the New Zealand Labour Party was born within the trade union movement and has derived most Of its vigour therefrom. Why, then, does the prime Minister, Mr Fraser, choose to turn upon the leaders of a union which is at the very core of the Labour movement? Why has Mr Fraser chosen to fight these union leaders publicly, and to reveal to the whole community the rift in the house of Labour when the matter could have been settled privately? Government and Federation Challenged

Why, too, does the Waterside Workers’ Union risk all its rights and privileges, its whole organisation, and ifs power within the Labour movement in this challenge to the combined forces of the Government and the leadership of the Federation of Labour? The first reason for this extraordinary situation can be found in the peculiar embarrassment which industrial troubles have caused to the Labour Cabinet. Some of the most prominent of the Labour leaders derived their power originally from the “right” of the Workers to strike. Much of the strength of the Labour move-: ment was won in the struggle of the Workers against their employers, a struggle which carried some of today’s notable Labour leaders into gaol on charges of inciting workers to Strike, but later installed them in the Labour Cabinet. To-day those same leaders are forced to take strong measures against unionists who still regard the strike as their legitimate and most powerful weapon. The waterfront workers have always been in the vanguard of the advancing trade union forces. They have won and lost vital battles in the past, and are, so far, determined th fight this latest one to the finish. If they win this battle, then the power of the New Zealand Government of the day is seriously undermined; but if they lose it. the whole of the workers will feel that their prospect of “getting any more out of this Labour Government” has receded. New Zealand has so far enjoyed comparative freedom from the strike fever and industrial troubles that have hampered the post-war recovery of so many nations, including Britain, the United States, Canada, and Australia. Now, however, industrial unrest has reached this country, and the waterfront trouble is only one manifestation of it.

Chief cause of this unrest is the concern of the workers at their economic position since the war ended. The present trouble was touched off in two principal quarters. First there was the decision of members of Parliament to vote themselves an extra, tax-free £6 a week, in spite of stabilisation. Then there was the Government’s granting of an extra £5 a weak to judges, while workers could not get 5s a week without a stabilisation query from the Judge of the Arbitration Court, These and other increases to the “upper strata” of the community brought open complaint from union quarters throughout New Zealand.. At the same time there was insistent demand for more efficient price control. The workers were finding their takehome pay reduced because of the gradual elimination of the overtime worked in the war years; and with prices and rents tending to rise rgther than fall after the war they were' at a great disadvantage. Progressive trade union leaders began to insist that if stabilisation could stand increases in some quarters, then it could stand an over-aR wage increase for the workers. The Walsh Report The chief stumbling block these unionists encountered was, curiously enough, the vice«president of the Federation of Labour, Mr F. P. Walsh, who, as a member of the Stabilisation Commission, had become an almost fanatical enthusiast for stabilisation as the commission administers it, regarding it as this Dominion’s rock of safety. Up to a point most people will agree with him.

His now historic Walsh report on stabilisation, issued nearly a year ago, made his position clear. It won the approval of all but the trade unionists to whom It was addressed. Unionists were at once dismayed by a f policy that would continue to impose a ceiling on wages while prices, in many fields were not being effectively held. They interpreted the Walsh report as a bar to their economic progress. They had it quoted to them by the employers in conciliation councils throughout the country, and in the Court of Arbitration. They began to see in Mr Walsh an ally of the employers. They saw the old inequalities perpetuated in a system frozen, theoretically, at the 1942 level. They had made much progress in recent years in wages and conditions; now they

heard a halt called, or at least the irfc» some word to mark time. Some began to think of abandoning the Arbitration Court and negotiating direct with the employers under the Labour Disputes Investigation Act, which would give them legal right to strike. Others determined through the trades councils and the Federation of Labour to demand wage increases, despite the stabilisation Plan. At the June, 1946, conference of the Federation of Labour, Mr Walsh won election to the vice-presidency of the Federation of Labour, and saw elected with him an executive likely to think his way. The national council of the federation, however, coming direct from the trades councils throughout the Dominion, proved to contain sufficient opposition to Mr Walsh to defeat his policy. So strong did the opposition become that Mr Walsh’s national executive.no doubt sensing it, met it half-way at the last ordinary meeting of the council before Christmas. The executive at that meeting brought down a report c >nceding that the workers should claim a wage adjustment un<|er awards to bring them into line with those sections of the community granted increases since April 1, 1946. This report also affirmed that the generally desired higher production level should be accompanied by the grant of an increased proportion of the products of labour to those who efid. the work and gave the services, ft also recommended that in the intej. ests of stabilisation there should be a more rigid administration of price controls. It was further proposed that representation for the Federation of Labour should be sought on all committees affecting essential production and stabilisation. Even these proposals, however, were not sufficient to satisfy the opposing elements, who resisted wage-pegging and voted for a special conference of the council to bo held early this year to determine trade union policy on stabilisation. It was agreed to invity proposals from the unions through the trades councils.

Embarrassing Demands First to move in the matter was the Waterside Workers’ Union, whose national executive put forward proposals including a minimum weekly wage of £6 11s a week (incorporating the cost of living bonus); a standard weekly wage of £9 Us for unskilled workers; £7 2s 6d. for semi-skilled workers, and £7 14s for skilled werk-r ers; payment of 90 per cent, of the male workers’ rate to female workers; overhaul of price control; and the raising of sickness and unemployment benefits from £2 to £3 a week. These proposals could hardly be accommodated within the existing framework of stabilisation, but if the national council meeting did not adopt them it seemed likely that it would propose something similar. This fact, and the growing strength of the national council to the Walsh policy, indicated, no doubt, to Mr Walsh and Mr Fraser that they would soon have to cope with embarrassing demands from within the trade union movement. A district cleavage on these issues was imminent. When the waterfront dispute developed over the guaranteed wage both factions were in the mood to fight it out at once. It was more than a . question of procedure over the guaranteed wage. Mr Fraser and Mr Walsh vere keen to master the waterside offti clals, Mr Fraser as Prime Minister to ensure the fullest degree of industrial harmopy, and Mr Walsh, as the chief apostle of stabilisation, to stifle the threat to his policy and the challenge to his leadership. The watersiders found support within the national council of the federation, but were blocked later, principally by Mr Walsh, op the executive. They decided to continue the fight. The public was then treated to the spectacle of political leaders and heads of the Federation of Labour shaping up to the watersiders in the preliminaries to an open battle. A full-scale prppaganda war was waged against the waterside officials, in which the unprecedented course of using the radio ,• network was adopted. Some of the waterside leaders, with keen Communists at their elbows 9 made indiscreet statements from whftfcrt they could hardly retreat; and at every false step they took the Government?? moved in closer. It seemed that the Waterside Union might even disintegrate. Political leaders made no secret of their hope that it would. A strong bid was made from Parliament Buildings to alienate officials from the rank and file of the union, and from all trade unionists. This bid will continue, no doubt, at the conference on Janu- • ary 21, if the waterfront dispute remains unsettled. Union Firm The structure of the Waterside Union, however, so far shows no cracks, and, jf it is called for, substantial support is likely to be forthcoming from certain key union quarPolitical leaders hoped for dissension within the union at to-morrow’s meeting of the national council of the union, but with the prospect of this by no means assured, they have turned to a full conference of the Federation of Labour to settle the issue. The watersiders will no doubt seek to relate their struggle as closely as possible to the interests of the trpde union movement as a whole. They may even dispose of the present waterfront issues before then and fight the battle at the conference on a broader basis. For the watersiders, their power and unity have been at stake. For Mr Fraser, the future of his Government is involved. For Mr Walsh, his position of great power within the industrial movement and the country as a whole is challenged. For the trade Union mov eme nt, there is a threat of distinct cleavage, ending in the disaffiliation of some unions from the Federation of Labour. For the rank and file unionist, prospect of early improvement of his economic.states or of any improvement at all within Lacour's remaining term of office is at For the community as a whole, the vital issue of industrial harmony is of greatest concern. While industrial disputes last the whole country is held to ransom. The federation’s full conference, though it certainly cannot achieve a

guarantee of industrial peace, can a' leapt ensure, if directed carefully, freedom from trouble for a while at least