THE LABOR MOVEMENT

Evening Star, Issue 17484, 15 October 1920, Page 6

THE LABOR MOVEMENT

[By '.VsiEßaN.]

Britf contributions on ~«aW: teference to the Labor}' Movthn/teittiart' rnvited.

THE AUBITRATTONH COURT.

The Arbitration Court ace»withwis againji but they do not seem to have such a large number of cases to deal. with, .as they had at their last sittimrJ-in Daneidin., It is very evident that- the members of 1 the Court have had _a busy time in the North since leaving Dunedin. The Court opened their sittings at Auckland on September 6, and eat every day tuitilyOctSber 1 dealing with a list of 114 cases. And while the Court were sitting several disputes were heard by the Conciliation Commissioner and referred to'the Gonrt, some to be formally made into awards. Others were partly settled, and only„a few points referred to the Court. These latter were all dealt with, thus saving the parties having to wait until the Courf's next visit to Auckland. It is a pity that +>his cannot always be done when oases have been referred to the Court daring their sittings in any centre, but unless both parties to the dispute are agreeable that the case should be dealt with at once the Commissioner has to hold the matter for 30 days after hearing before referring it to the Court.. This sometimes causes vexatious delays and occasionally a three months' wait for the Court's next visit; that is. if the provisions" of the Act are complied with and a sitting is held every T bfee months.

One of the cases that went -through the Conciliation Council and the Arbitration Court in one week was the Auckland soilmakers' dispnte, which was an application for a new award, the old one having been in force since 1911. When the Court heard argument on the only unsettled clause—viz., the wages clause—the union representative asked for the skilled wage of 2s an plus 3d an hour bonus, on the ground that it was a trade that required a five years' apprenticeship, and was all hand sewing, or "palm work," as it is called in the trade, for machine work was exempt from the award The employers' representative, on the other hand, held that some of the work was closely allied to the saddlers' award, under which horsacovers were made by sewing machine. The saddlers' award nrescribed Is lid per hour for this work;" therefore the sailmakers should be satisfied by being placed on a figure similar to the saddlers. The latest award to saddlers was at Christchurch, in which Is 10,W, plus 3d bonus, per hour had been fixed as the minimum 'or skilled workers. The question was left for the Court to wrestle with, but in answer to a request from the union for an early date for the award to come into operation His Honor intimated that the question of the basio wage was a clearcut one, and there would be no difficulty in having the award (whatever it might be; coming into operation on the first Monday in October, as there was no objection from the emnlovers.

+ l T. ould appear that the workers in the sail. tent, and covermaking industry ere in a much better position in Auckland than those doing the same olass of work in Dunedin. Probably this is accounted for by the fact that there are hardly enough male workers employed to form a union (which requires 15 members before a union can be registered). But surely this could be got over by linking up with some union such as the saddlers, whose members often do similar -work, such as covermaking. However this reference to the ttosition of their fallow-workers in Auckland may be the means of putting some life into the tent and covermakera m Dunedin, who, I understand, are in a much worse position both as regards wages and working conditions. It is to be hoped that they will soon be able to organise and take their rightful place amongst skilled tradesmen, as the industryis claimed to be one of the oldest in existence, as shown by the following by Industrial Tramp" in the Auckland Star, who says : Quite an interesting exchange, of scriDtural lore took place during the hearing of the dispute of the Auckland Sail, Tent, and Covermakers Union at the. Conciliation Council on -Monday afternoon. In introducing the claims of the union the union advocate mentioned that the industry under review was one of the oldest in existence, and one of the most skilled. In proof of its antiquity he cited the fact that St. Paul was a member of the trade, as it was mentioned "because he was of the same craft, he abode with them, and wrought; for by their occupation thov were tentmakers." _ (Acts xviii. verse 3). In proof of its skilled nature it required an apprenticeship of five years to qualify as a journeyman. In reply one of the employers' assessors quoted the fact that ■ St. Paul was a tradesman that did not stick to the eight hours and charge, overtime after that, for in writing to tho Thessalonians he said " For ye remember, brethren, our labor and travail; for laboring night and day, because we would not be chargeable unto any of you, we preached unto you the gospel of God." The union advocate retorted that St. Paul lived and worked previous to the passing of the Factories Act of 1891, in which hours of work were denned, as wfcll as overtime rates provided by law. "Industrial Tramp " also tells us something about the way the Court work. He says : Previous to the official opening of the Court the members had been in Auckland nearly a month, as Mr Justice Stringer presided at the Supreme <"tf"iri sessions, and his two colleagues. Messrs W. Scott_ and J. A. M'Culkmgh, were busy sitting in committee working off arrears of business brought from the southern centres. During this period, too. there was a special sitting of the Court held to hear the sutrarworkers' disnute. and an award was given, eo tho* while we often blame the Court for delays in getting their decisions filed, I am afraid wo do not always give credit, to the Members for the amount of work done. During the session just, finished the Court have not restricted their work to daylight hours, for on many evrmings thev'havc sat in committee until 10 o'clock."

! LABOR AND NATIONALISATION. There is no doubt that many industries might, with profit to eil classes, be nationalised, if everyone could only be persuaded to do his share towards making nationalisation a success. But what has been happening in connection with the State coal mines has not given the pnblio much faith in the question of nationalising industries. Mr F. H. Roao, a member of the House oi Commons, has an article in the ' Daily Mail,' «in which he poinis out some of the difficulties in connection with nationalisation. He say.s j The conceptions of the. principle of nationalisation held by the 60 odd members of the Parliamentary Labor Party may be taken as quite typical of the goners! view taken by organised Labor in tna ms-ss. It is a confused and illogical view—in some respects as curiously anti-social as it is essentially a result of perfunctory "thinking." It is incomprehensible, excepting in tho' light oi working-class political history. Simply stated, the main facts are that rank and file Labor has always been in the mass divided in sympathy between the old political parties, while trade union officialism has almost invariably expressed its political faith in terms of Liberalism. There are not in the present Parliament a dozen Labor members who have been long associated 'with, the modern Socialist movement. Young and old alike, most of them are simply Liberal-Laborites who have made a vogue of quasi-Socialist profession without troubling to reconcile their attitude with the foundation tenets of Socialism. Thev do not know the rudiments, far less do they understand the principles, of collectivism to which tliey render lip service. It is not at all astonishing, therefore, that they should have developed a crazy, hotchpotch in wliich industrial unionism direct action, State Socialism. Victorian trade unionism, philosophic BadicalLsm, and Syndicalism are the incongruous quantities. There is a lack of decision and direction because there is a lack of intellectual light. However Socialists may differ as to method, or even interpretation, there is not-—there never has been—any deviation in the matter of the object of Socialism: "The collective ownership and control of ihe means of sreductioa, 'distiibatioft, gn.4

exlii&fagjS p^ f Bettience embodies a cppclas &nd; eanple deolaEaia&n of Socialist and jfpibormzea the whole principle yof pationahsafeian. Th© modern Laborist ißithex does no* imderßtand it or fears to £face- its interpretation into plactioe. The factors of wealth produclaDn are, accord•lnS Is? the orthodox economists, Land, The jnore simple forijjmflajofJSphn Btaart Mil fa "Labor, and nafcoraj objects. But that Laoojj js'ljhe pirimary arid most important f actor,» obwjous enough, io any economio ..-'s£«d«iife. It follows thai_ nationalisation --must involve the State control and disposition of Labor. The Syndicalist idea of thb ownership and control of the industriaj 4 dir& productive, •elements by the workeach industry is no more crasy than thafr of the average Labor man who somehow assumes that the nationalisation of productive and distribfftive elements and the right to strike are compatible. Not even a consciously Socialist Government should on© ever exist, ootdd commandeei an»industry'or a public service -without a preliminary guarantee that the workers engaged in such, industry or service Should be willing to work under such conditions and upon saoh ifcerms as were ordained by the State in the common interest of the community. In a sentence, nationalisation shatters at a Wow the etrike and lock-out, and dispels the vain dream of national industry directed by trade union officialism. The authority of Labor must be expressed no longer by the trade union, but through the State, which becomes responsible as the sole employer. The nationalisation of the mines and the railways is the best illustration, because both subjects have been brought recently into the region of what is termed practical politics. The Stato, af it assumes the ownership of either or both of these sei vices, assumes it at the cost and the <risl of the whole nation, and in the name ol the nation. It can only operate successfully with a disciplined and constant labor force. It must control all the factors of industry, or nationalisation is a misnomer and a sham. That "these elementary truths must 'be declared forcibly and fearlessly by the Labor elect is the first essential, brut strangely involves a duty in which the Labor Party mandarins have rather ignobly recoiled. The advantages of nationalisation can only be realised by the frank and. consentient sacrifice of cherished industrial privileges. Labor cannot have it <both wavs. If the abysmal folly of Labors present conceptions of State ownership and control need emphasis, it is not diffioult to emphasise it by a very obvious and simple analogy. The strike and the lock-out are expressions of the same principle. The strike is the withholding of Labor from Capital, and the lock-out is the withholding of Capital from Labor. The idea of both is to enforce the domination of the one interest, over the other. If the workers engaged in a nationalised industry may strike against the State of which they are at once citizens and servants, the State may surely exercise the right to lock out the workers to enforce the terms and conditions_ of labor deemed to be the most convenient and right for the nation. After all, what we term the State is but the official agency through wMch a democratic community governs itself. The workers in any State-owned and directed industry assume a dual character—that of common citizenship expressing civic authority through the State Government which ii shares in appointing, and that of communal service. If Labor strikes, or malingers, or wastes, it injures itself, both in practice and theory. If the State locks out, it makes war against the community, as well as against its own servants. The position in either case is ludicrous. It is to be feared that the average Labor leader has failed to discriminate between the essentia] principles of State ownership and control and mere government and admin istrafion of the national affairs by the trade union executives. Suggestions made to the organised workers that, in the event of nationalisation, there will be all the greater need for powerful trade unions are wrong-headed and illogical. The continuance of the orthodox trade union policy by the workers simply means the conversion of the State departments into the equivalent- of an employers' federation. The competitive straggle between eni plovers and workers would be perpetuated with infinitely disastrous results al) round. It would seem,, therefore, that be. fore any extensive schemes for nationalisation can materialise Labor must concede to the nation some restriction of what is regarded as industrial privilege and liberty. The State must, guarantee such industrial conditions as will secure the comfoTt and reasonable leisure and liberty of the workers to the highest degree commensurate with public interest. Without such guarantees it seems impossible to seriously contemplate nationalisation in any form or degree. INCREASE IX WAGES. The rise in wages in various occupations in England is shown in the following list, comparing rates in 1915-14 with thosa prevailing in August, 1919: 1913-14. 1919. Miners ... 8s 5d per shift 186 per shift Railway drivers 555-oos wk. 68s-83s wk. Guards ... 255-55s wk. 58s-68swk. Signalmen .. 255-30swk. 58s-63s wk Porters ... 20s-26a wk. 535-59s wk. Carting (onehorse drivers) 245-27s wk. 545-57swk. Shoe clickers 50s per wk. 58s per - wk. Bakers (table hands) ... 28s-38s wk. 60s-70s wk. Cotton spinning and weaving 110 per cent. inc. Woollen do. Time workers 107 per cent. inc. Woollen do. Piece (men) 85J per cent.

Woollen do. Piece (women) 91 per cent.