THE LABOR MOVEMENT

Evening Star, Issue 19409, 18 November 1926, Page 16

THE LABOR MOVEMENT

[By Vbiebah.] Bsiel contributions on mitten with rtfercscs 19 tba Labor Movement are Invited. BRITAIN’S GREATEST INDUSTRIAL UPHEAVAL. Everyone will be glad to note that the great strike, or lock-out, call it whichever you like, is about at an end. But what about the distress it has caused to thousands, of families not onlv in the coal' mining districts, but all over the country, ,who have had no connection with the disturbance except that they have been thrown out of work on account of the shortage of coal, and the many thousands who have had to go short of food. And it has been worse for the women and children. It will take many years of good times to make up for their loss, if it ever can be made up. A cable received on Monday stated that the coal strike has cost the country £-100,000,000. Who will have to stand the loss? If ever it is made up it will have to be done by the workers and the producers generally. The mine owners, miners, and the British Government seem to be about equally to blame for the trouble. It would seem that they have all been badly advised, or the trouble would have been settled long ago. Mr James Sexton, M.P., writing on the coal dispute, says: “Many people lay the blame on what they call extremists," and he asks the question: “ What is an extremist ? Some writers mix with Socialism. Now, the one in fact is the very _ antithesis of the other. Bolshevism in its method of administration, at least as it is generally accepted, means an appeal to force. Socialism, on the contrary, is an appeal to intellect, and to bring about a change in our present social system by argument and by constitutional methods.

“ In other words, Socialism means a science of government, just as does Liberalism or Toryism. And it is just here that 1 think i can count upon * Scrutator’s ’ support if 1 venture to doubt the scientific methods of the present Government. Socialism in the abstract, Socialism of the Karl Marx type, may be considered fantastic and economically unsound. The old slogan of the nationalisation of the means of production, distribution, and exchange, use value, cash nexus has had its day. And though 'as am ideal it may still remain in trie minds of some, I venture to say that there are very tew, if any, responsible Socialists to-day, apart from the followers of Lenin, who have any notion of its application. “ Therefore, my fellow-workmen, my advice to you, for what it is worth, is not to allow confusion to emter your mind on this question of extremists. For remember there are various types which might, in some people’s mind, qualify for the order of the boot. There are, in fact, those who are strict constitutionalists, and who have been so described. More than once, in fact, in my own experience as the guide, philosopher, and friend of my own organisation have 1 been threatened with the order of the boot for no other reason.

“We have, in fact, extremists on all sides. We have them in the attitude of the mine owners to-day, who are not contemt with their original pound of flesh—the eight-hour day—but who are now demanding still another slice, which was no part of the original bargain. “ Again, my good workman, I would advise you not to be influenced, or at least not to be unduly influemced, by the candid friend who, while condemning the general strike as illegal, professes to be a friend of trade unionism. The general strike may have been a desperate adventure. “Desperate diseases sometimes call tor desperate adventures. _ Personally,, though 1 had my own opinion of the feneral strike, and being a participant, assume that I, temporarily at least, qualified for the order of the boot, I have never subscribed, nor do I now, to the assertion that it was illegal, or that the grounds upon which such a statement was founded was an attack upon constitutional government and a hold-up of industry. “ Strikes of all kinds might be included in the same categonr. The present miners’ dispute, which technically is not a strike, but a lock-out, is an example. Industry more or less is held up, and things become intensified as the days go by. And though miners, who come within the emergency regulations, may be prosecuted, there is as yet no • evidence of any complaint of illegality against either the miner or the mine owner.

“Yet strikes are ugly two-edged weapons, the keener edge generally hitting the workman and his iamily. Most heartily would 1 welcome their abolition, but it is not possible under existing economic conditions. They are, in tact, the logical outcome of trade unionism. Conciliation and negotiation, I agree, are much preferable. But, though there may be exceptions—and I agree there are—the advantage to the workers would be very little, if any, either in negotiation or conciliation, were there not the knowledge of the strike alternative in the minds of both sides. “Strikes are, in the words of the economist, economically unsound. So are lockouts, though the political eco- 1 nomist sometimes forgets to distinguish the fact in the latter case. If strikes are an economic fallacy in the opinion of the economist, then the same applies to the trade union who organises the strike. Unfortunately it is the only weapon the workers have, owing largely, if not altogether, to their clinging to the political faith of their forefathers on the principle that what Was good enough for him is good enough for me. “I am not out to defend all the disputes that occur, some of them are, in fact, undefendable. The narrow lines of demarcation in some industries created to meet circumstances of the middle ages of industrial organisation, do not fit in with the present-day advance in production. But where, my good workman, is this thing to end, if when we agree to wage reductions and longer hours to meet foreign competition, the foreigner immediately follows suit by doing the same thing, and so puts us in the cart again? “ One sound piece of advice given to you in the ' Weekly Post ’ last week I would seriously commend to your notice, was in connection with the problem of land monopoly. I agree, most of our troubles spring from that source. The present mining dispute, in fact, rests upon it, It is, in fact, part of the Socialist propaganda (so vigorously criticised) to abolish it. There are two alternatives involved in the monopoly of land. And, my dear workman, if you will study the first page of the Bible you will find the land was God’s gift to the people originally. Here are the alternatives;—Take back the people’s property from those who now hold it contrary to Genesis, or tax the value created by the people and now enjoyed by an insignificant few/who do nothing to create anything. “In the first_ place, however, the land is the nation’s storehouse. , In other words, it is the " means of production.” the Socialist remedy described by some as a 'will-o’-the-wisp policy s —not by confiscation, but* by purchase of stolen goods. There is also the Socialist .policy of taxation of land values, fn fact, ' you pays yor money and you takes your choice.’ Socialism in bulk may be objectionable to some, but its propaganda has, at least, shaken up the dry bones of private enterprise. “ Now let me, in conclusion, ask you workers to look around you and not be frightened by shibboleths. Public ownership of water, gas, electricity, national control of the latter now being advocated by the present Government, and other public necessities—-

and all owing to the Socialist propaganda! And, above all, do not be unduly alarmed by the prophesied ruin of trade unionism. It has had just as great trials as the one it is passing through. It will survive this as it has survived others, profiting by its experience. For oven in any state of society some such organisation will be required to save democracy from itself.” ■ # » * * LIMITATION OF APPRENTICES. The Apprentices Act has only been in active operation a comparatively short period, but already there are loud complaints in some industries of the'man* ner in which some of its provisions are being-administered, especially in regard to the number of _ apprentices allowed in proportion to journeymen actually employed (says an Auckland writer). At the last Trades and. Labor Council mooting some illuminating information was advanced by some of the delegates as to how the quota permitted under the Act was worked out. It was alleged, that in returning the number of journeymen employed by one employer, unskilled labor, such as motor drivers, employed by the firm in the regular prosecution of its business, was included in tbe number of workers employed by the firm, and that a, quota of one apprentice to three journeymen would be levied on tbo total number, and not merely on the skilled journeymen at work. This discrepancy evidently is not peculiar to Auckland, for I notice that the Court-of .Arbitration has recently given a decision under the Canterbury leadlight and glass workers’ award, which betokens- tbe same uncertainty (P) as to tbo correct basis of computation. The question submitted to the court was; “ Is an employer entitled to count silverers, polishers, leadlight cementers, and machine beveliers as journeymen for the purpose of determining the number of apprentices under clause 6 of the Apprenticeship order? " In the opinion of the court workers in question are semi-skilled workers, and must not be counted as journeymen. It may be true that apprentices, in order to become fully qualified journeymen, require to learn the operations performed by these workers, but this circumstance does not elevate workers regularly _ engaged in these semi-skilled operations to the status of journeymen. The operations in question are only subsidiary branches of the industry.” * * » « APPRENTICE OR JOURNEYMAN. A case of interest to employers and employees generally was heard before Mr E. C. Cutten, S.M., at Auckland recently, which indicates that there is l at times a laxity in carrying out the provisions of the Apprentices Act in regard to the completion ot apprentices’ contracts, which have now taken the place of the old-time indentures. The inspector of awards proceeded against an employer in the electrical trade for failing to pay journeyman’s rates of wages to a youth in his employ. The employer had engaged the youth as an apprentice to the trade, but had neglected to_ have the requisite contract of apprenticeship reduced to writing and registered with the Registrar of Apprentices within twentyeight days of the commencement of the engagement, as required by the Apprentices Act. The inspector pointed out that as the contract had not been completed as prescribed, the only alternative was for employers to pay full journeymen’s rates of wages, as only two classes of labor were recognised by the award —viz., journeymen and apprentices. As this was the first case heard in Auckland, the inspector did not press for the full penalty, and the employer was fined £1 and costs.