FIGHTING THEIR UNION

Evening Post, Volume CX, Issue 58, 5 September 1925, Page 6

FIGHTING THEIR UNION

Attempts have been made to represent the strike of British seamen in Australian and' New Zealand, waters as a defence of Union rights against the treachery of a dictator. The intemperate 1 language of Australian and New Zealand strike supporters in itself reveals the weakness of their case. Their, abuse is directed, not againßt a new and untried leader but against one who for forty years has proved himself the courageous champion of the seamen and a true' unionist. Yet it is this man, Mr. Havelock Wilson, who is now accused of playing the traitor and of following a course which his critics say. is set to benefit' the shipowners,* not the seamen. The absurdity of the statement must bo apparent to any reasonable man. But the case against the. strike does not rest solely, or ever chiefly, upon Mr. Havelock Wilson's record; The suggestion that Mr. Wilson accepted a reduction of wages without authority, and on his personal responsibility, is wholly unwarranted. The agreement which authorised a reduction was made by the Union itself and the reduction was approved by the Maritime Board and endorsed by. 15 branches of the "Union. It may be saM that there' has been no direct endorsement by a plebiscite of the whole Union. But such an endorsement could not possibly be obtained from seamen scattered over all the seas and ports of the world.

Nevertheless, there has been direct endorsement of the action of the executive council inasmuch as the seamen have signed -on their ships under the new terms. It is significant that in British Home ports only a small minority of the men have refused to sign.' Fifty thousand* others have chosen to accept the agreement. Their acceptance can be interpreted only in one way: as a token that they recognise the reasonableness of the conditions. They are better placed than seamen in this part of the world to realise why the reduction is necessary, for they see the ships of other' nations competing on lower wage scales and with les3 favourable conditions. If British shipping is unable to obtain aid in this competition, it must lose trade. The British Seamen's Union has recognised (.hat loss of trade is not merely the eqncern of the .shipowners. It touches every man whose means of life are supplied by the British mercantile marine. Knowing this, the Union, accepted a 'reduction of wages for the time being, with the understanding that the lost pay should be restored when the trade, was able to Stand the cost. The action of a dissentient minority in holding up the. ships must postpone the restoration. • Bti.t the minority strike '«. Bonjr*l:birjK more tbftii i\ i'lgW ugauist 31'ttse ieiiuctijj&s .Jt

is an attempt to wreck from within one of -the greatest of the British Unions. Those who support it are lending their aid to the extremists whose > aim is the destruction of British trade union power. The majority of the strikers, we believe, ( are the simple victims of a policy which they would disapprove if they perceived its design.. They imagine that they are .breaking tha power •of the old Union so that a new and stronger organisation may be created. They have a duty to themselves to reconsider the position. If they do so, they must see that the disruption of the organisation which has served them well for years cannot produce a stronger movement. It can result only in weakness and .chaos.