The Dominion MONDAY, MAY 1, 1922. A WEAK DEFENCE

Dominion, Volume 15, Issue 183, 1 May 1922, Page 4

The Dominion MONDAY, MAY 1, 1922. A WEAK DEFENCE

An article in the current issue of The Katipo, the official organ of the Post and Telegraph Officers Association, offers an extraoidinaiy defence of the action of those members of the association who voted in favour of affiliating with the . Alliance of Labour. The principal argument submitted is that the Alliance of Labour is a lawful combination, and that any attempt by the Government to prevent the Post and Telegraph Association entering that combination would involve an interference with the liberty of the subject. This, of course, in a number of ways takes far too much for granted. Here and in other British countries some combinations exist within the law only because ias a nation wo believe that it is often better that even the rankest folly should. be ventilated in the open, where it will ultimately evaporate, than that it should be driven into hidden holes and corners. It is in these conditions that Communist bodies like the Alliance of Labour are tolerated, and it is only in this sense that such bodies are "lawful combinations.” It does not by any means follow that the right of membership in such organisations extends to State employees who stand in a position of responsibility to the whole community, and moreover are parties to a welldefined, though unwritten, contract. Apart from its legality, the proposed affiliation if it took effect would evidently upset the present relationship between the Government and its Post Office employees where conditions of service are concerned. At present these employees possess exceptional privileges. They have their own special machinery for dealing not only with questions of wage adjustment, but with all conditions of employment. For the' methods available to the Post Office employees in matters of this kind, organisations like the Alliance of Labour substitute direct action. It hardly needs to be pointed out that direct action is incompatible with the conditions of a classified service whose members are protected by an Appeal Board and are entitled to superannuation benefits. It ought to be apparent to the Post and Telegraph employees that if they joined hands with the direct actionists they would by their own act in great part reject and forfeit the special privileges they now enjoy. One obvious ground, though not the only One, on which the Government may fairly base its stand against the proposed affixation is that the Post Office employees have been granted concessions of various kinds, in return for which it is expected that they will conform to the essential conditions of employment which gained for them their special privileges as compared with the outside worker.

As to the necessity in the public interest of maintaining these essential conditions unaltered, and particularly of safeguarding the Post Office against domination by f any sectional organisation, only one opinion is possible. It is not necessary in this connection to go very far in examining the aims and objects of the Alliance of Labour. The fact that it aims at overthrowing our existing representative institutions in favour of a form of the Soviet system which brought about the frightful conditions now ruling in Russia may be passed over, It is no doubt quite safe to assume that in this country such aims and proposals will never get beyond the stage of talk. It is of practical importance, however, that the Alliance of Labour is committed to the mischiefmaking policy of direct action. The hope of its promoters is to achieve a pitch of’ organisation which would enable them to call out the whole of its members in connection with any sectional dispute that might arise in industry. Post Office employees and the public ought to be able to agree that it would be a monstrous thing if all the postal and telegraphic services in the country were hold up because, say, the storemen —the latest recruits to the Alliance of Labour —were unable to reach agreement with their employers. Advocates of the proposed affiliation have offered some assurances that no such hold-up would occur, but, apart from the insecurity of such assurances, the people, who own the Post Office, fihve every right to object to such a hold-up being even made possible. The issue raised is perfectly plain. It is certainly in the interests of the whole community, Post Office employees included, that the Post Office should be protected against any form of outside domination, and that the unbroken continuity of its indispensable services should be guaranteed. No sane human being would suggest that the affiliation of the Post and Telegraph Officers’ Association with the Alliance of Labour is, or could be, compatible with such a guarantee. The article in The. Katipo to which we have referred no doubt reflects the attitude of the executive officials of the Post and Telegraph Association. It is a weak attempt to make the best of an obviously false move. These officials cannot be unaware that in light of the discussion to which it has given rise the proposed affiliation has been vigorously condemned inside the ranks of their own association as well as by the mass of outside public opinion. They must know that even if they were enabled to persevere in their mistaken policy an early result would be to split the association, and to make a united organisation <?f the officers of the Post and Telegraph service impossible. It is beyond doubt that the , Post Office employees will study

their own interests as well as those of the public if they reverse the vote recently cast for affiliation witli the Alliance of Labour.