"EXTREME SOCIALISM."

Evening Post, Volume LXXI, Issue 142, 16 June 1906, Page 2

"EXTREME SOCIALISM."

TRADES COUNCIL v. FEDERATION LABOUR'S REPLY. The "extreme Socialism" of the > Labour Party seems to I>3 the warning note of this manifesto, and it is with the object of driving back this socialistic wave that they appear in print. They have a hopeless task before them. They will never stay this rising tide, which will go on increasing in strength day by day. — Labour's reply to the Employers' Federation manifesto. The Executive of the Otago * Trades Council has just issued a very lengthy reply to the manifesto recently published by the Employers' Federation of New Zealand. Piesumably, fiays the reply, the driving-out-capital bogey, etc., would not go down with the people in face of the 6tern facts that our industries were spreading at a phenomenal rate, and that labour legislation was not injuring the colony, bub rather benefiting it; so it is now thought advisable to come over to the other side of the fence, and take some credit for this beneficial legislation. Comment is made at some length on the statement in the manifesto that "the desire of the federation has always been to increase employment, and to provide work for all at a fair wage with reasonable hours." The question is asked : "Will the members of the Employers' Federation tell us that as good wages are paid to men who are not protected by a union as are paid to those in a similar industry who are working under an award of the Arbitration Court? Take clerks, drapers' assistants, warehouse salesmen Are these men, who are not protected by a union, paid, on an average, fair wage 6? We have no access to the employers' books, . and therefore cannot speak 'by the book,' but we have sufficient information at our disposal to tell us that thejj are not. In some of the large warehouses in Dunedin men had to come back night after night for months in the year, and got not one penny piece for this overtime, even though they were only getting small wages. We think there would be no trouble in naming firms in this very city of Dunedin — yes, and firms whose heads are members of the Employers' Federation — who paid their employees less than 'a fair wa,ge with reasonable hours.' Will the Employers' Federation deny this?" The executive offers to supply names. "Rebuffs and set-backs we may have, but these are only temporary, and prepare us for coming forward with a bigger rush, as instance the maritime sttrike in 1890. . But things have taken a turn. The workers are having an innings ; they are doing the attacking now The employers have to act on the defensive. . . We are not afraid of the future welfare of the colony, on account of our Socialistic legislation, ot on account of the decidedly Socialistic trend which things are taking. It is a decided step in advance in this direction when we find in this manifesto that the employers are 'not adverse to municipal control of some departments in the public service.' . . It is too late for them to object to the Government owning the railways, tlho post and telegraph service, State coal mines, distributing coal depots, conducting State, fire insurance, State life insurance, etc. All these (jhings, whether conducted by the State or by the muincipality, are Socialism — industries being conducted by the people for the benefit of the people as a whole, instead of being conducted, as is too of fen ' the case at present, for the benefit of the employer who, in too many cases, gets more than a fair share of the money which is made out of the business— profit which is, to a large extent, made by his workers. But wheTe does the consistency of the Employers' Federation or of the opponents of State ownership come in in upholding the Government owning the railways of the colony and objecting to then> owning a steamship service? The one is carriage by land; tho other carriage by water, but the prinicple of ownership is just) the same. The field of 'private enterprise' is gradually being encroached on year by year, as tfhe State makes a step' forwaTd, and we intend to do our best to shift the fence further and fuTtlher back." \ 4 On the question of "preference to unionists," the reply states that "no more just claim than this has ever been made by the Labour party, and notwithstanding the strenuous and bitter opposition to it which has been displayed by the employers, backed up by the capitalistic press, we have no shadow of a doubt but that we will win in the long run, because justice must prevail. We have had the same persistent opponents — the employers and the press — all along the line of march, bub still we have made headway, and intend to continue to do so, let these forces bleat as loudly as they like. . . But if we have compulsory unionism, the employer will have no restrictions, because then every one in a particular trade will be a unionist), instead of as at present being restricted to only those who are on the union book, because he cannot now employ a nonunionist while a unionist is available. So instead of the field being restricted it will be enlarged. But this is only a sample of the ignorance and want of knowledge of the subject displayed by our critics." The reply concludes : — "W have had enough of the present competitive commercial system, which lead 6to such disclosures as we have had dished up to us in the American Beef Trust scandals, the New South Wales land swindles, etc., etc., ad infinitum. We want an altered system, which will prevent 'this, and vn> will not rest content till we 'get it."