CRAFT AND CLASS UNIONISM

Evening Post, Volume CII, Issue 28, 2 August 1921, Page 11

CRAFT AND CLASS UNIONISM

If) THE EDITOR,

Sir,—l am indobted tc Mr. M'Arley for his letter in your issue of last Tuesda-y.. as it gives me an opportunity of explaining the facts in connection with the resolution to which he draws attention.

The resolution- in question was clause 2 of the report of a committee set up by. the Australasian Labour Congress, which met in Melbourne' last month to deviso ways and means of bringing about tho objective of the Socialisation of tho Means of Production, Distribution, and Exchange. Tho recommendations of that committee wore adopted hv tho Melbourne Congress, and, accordingly, formed pa.rt of tho report of the New Zealand delegate, Mr. H. E. Holland, M.P., to tho Conference of tho Labour Party, which met in Wellington on the 13th instant. It was agreed by the .latter conference that as clause 2 dealt with the question of improved industrial organisation,, it was a matter on which, beyond affirming tho principle of industrial unionism embodied in it, the party should take no action, and that the clause should be referred to the representative industrial organisations for thoir consideration rather than to the party's affiliations to which tho political clauses are to be submitted.

Tho latter portion of the resolution, which read—"And pledges itself, and all ■its future representatives, to organisation of the workers along the lines of industry, as shall bo decided by the Organisation Committee of this conference," applied specifically vo We Australasian Conferonee, and had no bearing upon the decisions of the Labour Party, because—(l) Tho New Zealand Conference agreed that the a question of tho best form of industrial organisation was not primarily a niatter for the Labour Party, but for the industrial unions; (2) tho Labour Party Conference had no organisation committee.

Aa a matter of fact, the resolution was not intended to be given to the press without tho necessary alterations following on the conference's decision.

Furthsr, I would like to draw Mr. M'Arloy's attention to the fact that even if tho conference had adopted the resolution as it read, it would not be binding as a decision of tho party until it had been submitted to tho affiliated bodies for accoptanco or rejection, and had boon carried by a majority vote of them. As chairman of tho Labour Party Conference, I invariably ruled that any important matter affecting tho constitution or platform, which had not previously been submitted to tho affiliated organisations, could only bo co-rri/d subject to subsequent endorsement by them.

I am quite willing to have a friendly discussion with Mr. M'Arloy, either privately or in tho press, on- the relative merits of craft organisation of the workers, or of organisation along tho lines of industry. While I fully recognise and pay tribute to the splendid history of craft unionism, and while I gladly admit that many arguments can be adduced in its support. I am, after long and careful study of tho question, a convinced believer in the superiority of. class unionism and tho organisation of the worker's along the lines of industry.

I have no objection to discussing the larger question, of production and ita ovo-

lution, generally speaking, from the individualistic stage to its present highly 60----cialised form, but for tho present oontont myself with making clear the Labour Party's attitude on the resolution specifically mentioned by Mr. M'Arley. That io, that tho form of industrial organisation which the workers should adopt is not a question on which the National Conference could lay down a policy for the unions affiliated to the party. Tho question of the future organisation of the working class is not one for rigid dogmatianv but, on the contrary, is essentially ono for tolerance, friendly discussion, and, above ail, a wholehearted desire to achieve the greatest possible unity of Labour as a prelude to its emancipation. I agree with Mr. M'Arley that to a.sk any union to give up its preeent form of organisation, if there is no better form in oxisten.ee, would be to ask it to give up the substance for a shadow; but I \vieh to make it clear that the Labour Party has no'fc asked any union to do that. Tho important work of bringing into active operation the best and mopt effective form of working class industrial organisation is essentially for the Alliance of Labour, the New Zealand Workers' Union, and tho other largo trade unions, councils, and federations, including the Locomotivo Engineers. Firemen, and Cleaners' Association. Those- to whose lot that groat task falls can rest assured that they have, tho best washes of the New Zealand Labour Party in carrying it out.—l am, etc..

P, PHASER.

29th July.