The Dominion THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 17, 1921. THE POLICY OF “IRRITATION”

Dominion, Volume 14, Issue 123, 17 February 1921, Page 4

The Dominion THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 17, 1921. THE POLICY OF “IRRITATION”

The state of affairs created in the principal ports of the Dominion by the action of the various bodies of watersiders is. now quite plainly defined. Irritation tactics, intended to enforce the demand lor a bigger bonus than the employers lately conceded, are in full swing. Here and in other ports brief spells of normal working dre alternating with intervals in which a consideiable proportion of the men refuse to work overtime. A message from Christchurch, which appeared yesterday, reported that the watersiders at Lyttelton had clearly adopted irritation tactics. On Tuesday overtime labour was refused on eleven out of sixteen ships berthed at Lyttelton, and some of these vessels were thus delayed for a day. On the local wharves yesterday af - ternoon several ships were refused the labour required to continue load-, ing, bunkering, or other operations after 5 p.m., and other vessels secured 'only a portion of the overtime labour required. Since there is no shortage of. men on . the wharves, and over tithe work is a routine feature of waterside' industry, it is quite, obvious that the refusal of engagement is deliberately organised. It- in M way alters or modifies the facts that the waterside union officials here and elsewhere disclaim any responsibility for the tactics adopted. An irritation strike is manifestly in progress, and it would appear that thc.wat°rsiders hope to conduct it with impunity, and at a minimum of inconvenience to themselves, while they inflict heavy loss and impose serious inconvenience on. their employers and the public. Their plan of operation is, of course, transparent. Given their own way, they would be enabled to disorganise the whole cargo-handling industry while still earning enough to pursue their irritation tactics for an indefinite period. The Dominion is already heavily penalised by shipping delays due to the low level of efficiency to which cargo-hand-ling in its ports has fallen. The. slow rate at which .ships are leaded and discharged raises serious obstacles not only to the rapid dispatch of export produce which would assist and hasten a return to normal economic conditions, but to, the progressive reduction in freights which, otherwise might be expected at this time. These .disadvantages, of course, would be heavily intensified if the watersiders were allowed to persist in a policy which entails further delays of ship ping and an even lower level of efficiency in cargo-handling than that which has lately obtained.

All sections of the community, and not least self-respecting trades unionists, will no doubt agree, however, that the time has come to take a firm stand against a" policy so dishonest and marked bv such a callous disregard of public interest that the very men who have adonted it are ashamed to admit the fact. Even more in the interests of the community than on their own account, the employers of waterside labour arc bound to take strong measures against the underhand tactics to which the watersiders have resorted. It is the plain duty of the employers to force the issue even, if this should entail open conflict. A lead in every way worthy of tiling followed has been given in Australia, where the shipowners have refused to settle the current dispute with the seamen until the latter, through their official yepr.sentatives, give specific assurances that agreements will be honestly observed, and undertake to abstain from such industry-crippling tactics as are at present Iming practised by the New Zealand watersiders. According to the president of their New South Wales organisation (Mu. Walsh), the seamen decline to give the assurances sought, though they arc prepared to resume on the conditions existing prior to the stewards’ strike. Since the only assurances demanded relate to the observance of honest good faith, Mr. Walsh is evidently asserting the right of labour groups to treat honourable agreements as .waste paper, and practise sabotage or irritation tactics as the members of these groans, or anv of them, may feel inclined. The Australian shipowners are certainly making no mistake in refusing resolutely to consider a so-called settlement on such terms. Frightfully costly as the present hold-up is, it is in every way preferable to conditions of guerrilla warfare in industry which destroy efficiency and are fatally incompatible with general prosperity. As firm a stand as the Australian shipowners have taken, must ho taken in this country against the discreditable tactics the watersiders are at present pursuing. ’ The morality of the position is plain. It is putting no unfair pressure or hardship on any body of men to demand that they shall fairly carry out an agreement into which they have freely entered, and show nt least an elementary regard for the rights and interests of the community which confers upon them what may b» descrilx'd fairlv as a nositioii of sheltered privilege. It is bv this time sufficiently obvious that if the people of this country aro to enjoy continued prosperity during the next few years they must earn it bv sustained and united effort, and that further toleration of such tactics as the watersiders have adopted would speedily bring about conditions of widespread unemployment, want, and hardship. The employers of waterside labour can bo under

no misapprehension regarding’ the responsibility now cast upon them. It is their manifest duty to inform the ivatersiders that they must resume normal working, and fairly observe their, agreement or ’ accept the responsibility of bringing work in the ports of the Dominion to a standstill. Acting boldly on these lines the employers- will take, a much needed step towards establishing the sound industrial peace which will enable all sections of the population to attain the -greatest possible measure of prosperity.