THE LABOR MOVEMENT

Evening Star, Issue 19614, 21 July 1927, Page 14

THE LABOR MOVEMENT

[By Veteran.]

Brie{ contributions on matters with reference to the Labor Movement are invited. TRAINING OF APPRENTICES. In ' some, trades there is provision made in the awards of tho court for the employer to allow apprentices to attend tho Technical School for so many hours per week during tho usual working hours. I wonder if wo have the same difficulty hero as has been found in Australia? . As the result of recent representations made by tho Printing Trades Employees’ Union, Mr Davies, New. South Wales Minister for Education, recently visited the Sydney Technical College to make inquiries concerning facilities for carrying out the last award in regard to day tuition of apprentices in tho printing trade (says an exchange). Under the award any apprentice in tho trade is entitled’ to attend four hours weekly at tho Technical College for special tuition, his absence from work being compensated by his employer. Mr Davies explained that up to date the advantages of the award in that direction had been beyond the reach of apprentices because the necessary daytime teachers were not available. There have been two part-time teachers at night. The Minister is making arrangements immediately to institute day teaching by two teachers, which reform he estimates will not cost any more money, as tho night teaching will bo dispensed with. It means that henceforth every boy entitled to it will got the necessary trade instruction in conformity with the award The fight for this has been proceeding for some years. Tho Minister also visited the Education Department workshop at Drummoyne. He found that there had been three classes ot employees, classed as permanent, temporary, and casual. “A peculiarity of tho system,” remarked Mr Davies, “is that some workmen have been employed for years and are still on the casual list, meaning that their pay and conditions have remained all that \ time on that basis. This is worse than the temporary basis, which again is lower than the permanent basis.” Mr | Davies said that ho, discovered tem-j porary hands who had been there fifteen vears, and consequently had never partaken of tho advantages of permanent status. The Minister suggests a drastic remedy, which includes abolition of the terms “casual ’ and “ temporary,” so far as tho workshops arc concerned, and having adjustments made on the permanent basis. To this end. a conference will be held between Mr Davies and the organisations affected.

THE TRADE UNIONS BILL. Tho above Bill camo in for a good deal of comment from all classes. While Mr Ramsay MacDonald was in America. “ Scutator,” a writer in the ‘ Weekly Post,’ publishes an open letter to him advising him how to deal with his party on their treatment of the Bill. “Scrutator ” says: ’ ' “ The position of your party, I admit, is a very difficult one, but they need not make it absurd as well. In the first place, there is a big Conservative majority against them, and in tho second place it is impossible for them to put up a sound case against the main objects of the Bill, as distinguished from its omissions and defective phraseology. I fancy that you will tell your followers that the difficulty presented by superior numbers cannot, for the present at any rate, bo overcome, because Britain believes in majority rule. You will perform a real service if you can persuade your party to admit candidly that the Government has a perfect right to pass the Bill from a constitutional point of view, and that the duty of the Opposition is not to attempt the impossible task of defeating it, but to concentrate on the job or improving, its clauses, and, if they think fit, of weakening whatever attack it may import to tho Labor movement. If you, sir, again become Prime Minister, commanding a majority in the House of Commons, will you not expect to carry your Bills? Will you not meet obstruction with the guillotine as other Premiers, Liberal and Conservative, have had to do in the past? Will you be intimidated by abusive speeches and threats of repeal? And now, will you not counsel your people to bow gracefully to the inevitable, and patiently bide their time, as all loyal Britons are bound to do? ” The debate on tho second reading occupied four days in the House of Commons. Some of the speeches delivered were amusing, and some anything but interesting. • Clause 1 of the Bill in its original form dealt very drastically with strikes. Some of tho Labor members asked why it did not deal with lockouts as well. The Solici-tor-General then drafted two_ amendments which certainly made an improvement to clause 1 of the Bill. They read as follows:

“ It is hereby declared that any strike is illegal if it has any object besides the furtherance of a trade dispute within the trade or industry in winch the strikers are engaged, and is a strike designed or calculated to coerce the Government either directly or by inflicting hardship upon tho commiyiity; and it is further declared that it is illegal to commence or continue or to apply any sums in furtherance or support of any such illegal strike.” “It is hereby declared that any lockout is illegal if it has any object besides the furtherance of a trade dispute within the trade or industry in which tho employers locking out are engaged, and is a lockout design or calculated to cocrco tho Government, either directly or by inflicting hardship on the community; and it is further declared that it is illegal to commence or to continue or to apply any sums in furtherance or support of any such illegal lockout.” During tho debate Mr Philip Snowden saia that, although in his opinion a general strike would always bo ineffective as an industrial weapon, yet it was not wrong. Tho argument against a general strike was that it was a foolish and ineffective weapon to uso. Suppose, there is an illegal general strike, what is the Government going to do? Under the Bill every man who takes part in a so-called general strike can be sent to prison for three months. Ho certainly will not pay tho fine. Suppose that 5,000,000 men stop work, how aro you going to deal with that? Are you going to bring these 5,000,000 men before the court?

A Conservative Member: Get the leaders. Mr Snowden: The lion, member opposite has subtly illuminated the difficulty, but the Bill says nothing about taking the leaders first. Every man taking part in such an illegal strike must be dealt with either by summary proceedings or indictment. Are you going to discriminate, or are you going to take a few leaders, and think that by sending them to prison you are going to intimidate the rest? You have 5,000,000 men to deal with. Are you going to send them all to prison for three months? Where are you going to confine them; and what is going to become of tho trade and industry of tbo country iu that three months. (Laughter'.) “The purpose of this Bill, according to the Government,” Mr Snowden continued, “ is to prevent another general strike. I cannot imagine anything better calculated to provoke one. (Labor cheers.) The Bill has been introduced to foment class strife. It is the greatest godsend the Communists ever had. There is only one way to escape from strikes. My friends behind me know that I have never been an advocate of strikes. In all ray public life I have advocated the setting up of machinery by which industrial disputes might be solved without tho dislocation of industry. That is our position to-day, and that is why I deplore .this Bill. Jta introduction had made

the position of men like myself extremely difficult, if not impossible. How can one go on to platforms and appeal to our friends lor a better spirit?” “ I am not opposing this Bill on the ground merely of bad draughtsmanship or on the ground that some of the clauses are unfair or unjust,” said Mr Lloyd George, “I am doing it on tho ground that it is an exceedingly unwise thing at this stage when wo are struggling hard to recover our trade, when full recovery depends on goodwill and co-operation between employers and workmen, when it is impossible to achieve recovery unless the workmen work whole-heartedly, it is exceedingly unwise to bring in a challenging, provocative Bill of this kind.” Mr J. H. Thomas (Derby, Lab.) said it was said there was no intimidation from employers. There was sitting behind him a member whose daughter received an appointment after examination from an insurance company. When it became known that her name was Henderson, a letter came to say that she must give the name of her father and occupation. She put down " Miners’ leader,” and a private letter came from the firm that she was to bo dismissed, and no reason given. (Labor cheers and a Ministerial member: “Ten years ago”). ’“No,” replied Mr Thomas. “It was not ten years ago; it was less than throe weeks ago.” (Labor cheers.)

There were cries of “ Name the firm.” “ I do not want to develop tho matter too much.” continued Mr Thomas, “because there happens to bo a member of the Government who is a director of the firm.” (Labor cheers.) The Government, he said, would carry tho second reading, but Labor would carry the matter to tho country, and would win through. (Cheers.) Sir Douglas Hogg moved the closure, which was carried by 338 to 16S. The division on the second reading resulted For • 386 Against ... 171 Government majority 215 On the motion of the_ Attorney-Gene-ral tho Bill was committed to a committee of the whole House.