THE WORKERS' FALSE FRIENDS.

Dominion, Volume 1, Issue 257, 23 July 1908, Page 6

THE WORKERS' FALSE FRIENDS.

To,those who had hoped for a clear and explicit statement of organised Labour's attitude towards industrial law, yesterday's sitting of the Trades and Labour Conference will prove disappointing, but by way of compensation they may count some valuable revelations. The first of these is the fact that the "labour movement" is in the main in bad hands. The second is that, unfortunate as the workers seem to be in their'leaders, they nevertheless do succeed in getting a few counsellors whose sincerity is not incompatible with reasonableness. The third is that a majority of the leaders of the labour movement have no respect either for fair play or for statute law. To the general public the issue is this: Will Labour respect the law of the day, its spirit as well as its letter, whatever i't may be ? Will it loyally abide by the enactments of Parliament, putting up with what it dislikes, until it can legally secure what it desires? To the professional agitators, who are doing untold injury to the workers'who trust them, the issue seems to be anything but this. They desire the retention of the Arbitration Act, but they desire also complete freedom to. ignore that Act whenever they choose.

The first motion submitted at yesterday's meeting sought to "reaffirm the principles laid down in the Bill of the Hon W. P. Reeves, known as the Industrial . Conciliation and Arbitration Act of 1894." It seems obvious from the subsequent discussion that this motion was an ingenious move to affirm the right to strike, and the right to break faith under the guise of a profession of virtue and submission to law. Mr. Rusbridge moved as an amendment an honest declaration of fidelity to the system of arbitration "as against the brutal system of strikes and lock-outs," but his amendment, although it 'received some support, was rejected. What would havo happened to Mr. M'Laren's motion if it had not been withdrawn we do not know. That motion affirmed the superiority of arbitration, " provided proper means arc provided for effecting such conciliation and arbitration on lines of equity and justice," and went on to urge that " industrial tribunals " were in any case unsatisfactory things, and, that, in effect, the workers should be allowed to strike. Not to go into detail, we may say that the general tone of the discussion, which bristled with heated diatribes against "repressive" legislation, showed that the agitators who exercise so large an influence with the workers arc out of touch with the public's sense of justice. When they speak of "arbitration," they mean, not a just assessment, but an assessment in their favour. Until yesterday we had considered only a clever satire that an-; cicnt jest which represented the worker as saying, " Call that arbitration 1 Why,' they've given it agin us I " But it is no jest to the labour leader who is pre-

siding over the , present Conference. " Bather," he said, " than have their disputes settled by arbitration when arbiration was against them, they would have to resort to the strike method." "If a law docs not respect us," he added, " we won't respect it." >

The sooner the workers, who, we have always contended, are in the main reasonable men, get rid of such leaders as these, the better it will be for them. There was not wanting in yesterday's discussion some evidence that the "agitator" section is under suspicion. One of the few wise and honest things that were said came from a Wcstland, delegate, who remarked, in effect, that the new Bill of the Government was the natural outcome of the lav/less agitators. This delegate was very promptly suppressed. Me. Rusbridge, one of the reasonable, minority, also reproved the action, of the false friends of the worker, and he also found himself in disfavour. The blank wonder of Mr. Westihiooke's question, "If awards were unjust, what were they to do?"; the declaration of the Chairman that the workers will not endure arbitration when it goes against them; the open approval of strikes expressed by a majority of delegates who spoke; the carrying of a resolution hostile to the infliction of any penalty on a union that breaks its faith—these are depressing symptoms of the spirit which is being fostered by leaders of the labour movement. It is becoming moib evident every day that those leaders have no real senso of the great responsibility imposed on them by the positions they occupy. \No one could blame them for using their utmost endeavours to forward the interests of those they are appointed to represent— it is their obvious duty to do so. But their unreasonableness, their utter disregard for the rights of all outside their immediate circle; their contempt for all the canons of fair play and justice, must in the end prejudice the cause of those whose interests it should be their honest and unselfish endeavour to serve. The labour movement can never obtain any real and lasting benefits for- the worker until it is directed by men whose opinions arc not repulsive to the public's sense of justice and to the public's com-mon-sense.