THE INDUSTRIAL MERGER.

Evening Star, Issue 19616, 23 July 1927, Page 9

THE INDUSTRIAL MERGER.

TO TUB EDITOR* Sir,—-There appears to be little use in carrying on a controversy with suck a wordy acrobat as Mr Roberts, but once again let me bring him back to the subject upon which the controversy started —viz., the question of the Trades Council Federation merging •with the Alliance of Labor. I pointed out, in the first place, that the Trades Council Federation was a resuscitation of a similar organisation which conducted annual conferences for a quarter of a.century at least, the_ experience being that it could not function and all its efforts were wholly abortive. I stated that the Alliance of Labor was travelling the same circle, that whether the merger was or was not completed no effective organisation of Labor had been accomplished. That which was accomplished was that all unions accepted liability for capitation to the Alliance of Labor. Mr Roberts may characterise this as an assertion, but I make it with the history of the old Trades Council Federation, and also the more recent Alliance of Labor, behind me. The railway servants’ strike will not be among Mr Roberts’s happiest memories, with the humiliating conditions imposed upon the members of the alliance, and the impotence of this socalled organisation exposed under the acid test of reality. The reason for all this impotence is, as I pointed out. that the structures were built from the top story down, and not from a sound foundation up. The structures are built upon and around the secretarial positions. The persons holding these positions are the iinal arbiters of all the decisions of conferences of Labor, because all conference decisions must be submitted to each ami every union for approval; therefore, each and every secretary, in his own isolation, decides whether he will allow his union to agree or not to any policy that may be submitted by conference. It is unfortunate that this is so; Mr Roebrts may also characterise this statement of the position as : an assertion, but all the past history of trade unionism in this country substantiates it.

1 pointed out that, owing to the fact of the secretaries holding the key positions, any proposal for closer organisation and unanimity of policy which threatened their economic position would be at once vetoed. That any organisation that failed to deal with this problem was futile. 1 make this further statement with confidence born of experiehce, that the more closely the Alliance of Labor approaches the maximum of affiliations the more difilcmt ii will become to remedy the difficulty I have outlined; in a. word, the Labor movement remains, but more firmly entrenched, a “ sponger’s paradise, as it is at present. As against tills process of so-called organisation, I submitted the central labor office idea as a solution. I'ho salient points of this scheme are as follow; —The office is controlled by a Board of Control comprising delegates from the affiliated unions. The unions pay a capitation to the board, in return’ for which all secretarial and organisation duties are performed. The staff of the office arc eimiloyees of the tioara, n.id have nc standing -vith the unions. This removes the chief cause of dissension, uul secures a remarkable economy of expenditure. ’ When all the unions in a district are co-operating in Hus way the Board of Control becomes the actual Council of Labor, with tho policy of the unions directly under its guidance. The policy of Labor would be ascertained at a local conference of affiliated unions, the conference appointing its delegates to national conferences. TV decision*, of such conferences would ii )‘ lie subject to interference by individuals economically interested, ns is Jie case now, and. as a consequence, unanimity of purpose, efficient organisation, and financial stability are assured. Mr Roberts appears to imagine, because 1 dare to refuse to follow round the much-travelled circle once again with the Alliance of Labor refusing to read or absorb the lessons of history, that 1 am an opponent of Labor. On tllie contrary, it will bo apparent to any sane reader that the real opponents of Labor are those who, for personal economic .reasons, or from lack of intelligence, refuse to recognise tin* bard lessons of experience. Mr Roberts’s attempt to rebut the process of arriving nt decisions in connection with the open conference of the Alliance of Labor, is ludicrous, to say the least. He does hot actually deny my statement of the position. Your correspondent finishes his column of matter by assuming tbo riglj,t to put me in the prisoner’s dock, and put mo through n cross-examination as to my personal connection with Labor organisation. For unabashed audacity surely tins takes the palm. As to the standing of the Central Labor Office, Mr Roberts or any other person is welcome to all tiie information he desires, which will, no doubt, bo supplied on application to the office.—l am, etc., J. D. Smith. July 22.