THE LABOUR "SPLIT."

Dominion, Volume 1, Issue 77, 24 December 1907, Page 6

THE LABOUR "SPLIT."

What is there about the Wellington Trades and Labour, Council that makes it so frequently appear before the public as a party to ,a " row "? :, Of all the trades councils in the Dominion, it is the most active and pugnacious, the readiest to.pick quarrels, the most;seiisitive to : criticism, and the most prolific of warlike resolutions. Usually its quarrels and its resolutions have,only the narrow interest of all private disputes, entertaining only.to the idle observer .amongst outsiders; but its current dispute with the Furniture Trades' Union touches issues far broader and deeper than are apparent on the surface. The Union had. the temerity io exercise its freedom of choice in nominating a deputy-representative of employees on. the Arbitration Court, and sent forward the name of Mr. Coopor in spite of the Trades Council's instructions that Mr. Young should be nominated. . The Council promptly despatched a letter of censure to the Union, couched in the terms which might be used by a European despot addressing a refractory Minister. The Union, however, was not prepared to submit to dictation, and has discontinued its affiliation to the Council. It has seized the occasion, also, to express in plain terms its opinion of the Mandarins of the Trades Hall. Its indictment of the Council is based upon two counts: being' controlled by others than practical trades unionists it is not a bona fide labour body; and, further, its members,' by. claiming recognition "as the mouthpiece of trade unionism and labour generally," "use coercive means to silence opposition." Prom the explanations which have followed this rupture of diplomatic relations, it would seem that the Furniture Trades' Union's revolt is the breaking of a wave of discontent with the methods of paid officials of toil. When trades unionism first began to take the shape of a thoroughly organised force, the Unions no doubt imagined that, by_ hiring ex-workers to direct their affairs, they would have at their service enthusiastic counsellors who would be completely subject to their creators. Labour has now discovered /that the Unions have surrendered a large measure of their authority, and that in appointing servants they have created masters for themselves. There is no occasion to waste sympathy upon the Unions in their vexation at finding that the Council has grown autocratic and' independent, and that the policy of organised Labour is being shaped to suit, not the. wishes of practical Unionists, but the theories of a small knot of rowdy agitators. The local Trades and Labour Council has ceased, in the view of a large section of the public, really to represent the feelings of the general body of workers. It is widely regarded as a body more concerned with agitation, and the conservation of agitating conditions, than with a sane and temperate presentation of the case for the worker. We do not wish it to be thought that we under-estimate the value of trades unionism to industrial order and progress, through its .provision of means i

for corporate dealing and a coherent treatment of disputes.' A split in the ranks of organised Labour is, therefore, not a. subject for rejoicing. " Splits" there will continue to be—and, what is more serious.than "splits," a misrepresentation of the true feeling of the workers —until the Unions take steps to secure that they, and not their paid servants, shall control their affairs. Whether, *■ maintaining the present methods of appointing officers, the Unions can regain control' is a very doubtful proposition. It would be infinitely better for Labour if the Unions realised the danger of creating a Mandarin class from their ranks, and took the necessary steps to secure themselves - against subjection to a Board composed largely of paid agitators.