Greymouth Evening Star. AND BRUNNERTON ADVOCATE. THURSDAY, MARCH 23rd, 1922. ENGINEERING LOCK-OUT.

Greymouth Evening Star, 23 March 1922, Page 4

Greymouth Evening Star. AND BRUNNERTON ADVOCATE. THURSDAY, MARCH 23rd, 1922. ENGINEERING LOCK-OUT.

Bad luck appears persistently to attend the efforts of the Mother Country to accomplish the trade, levival rendered necessary by the war. Just as the industrial world at Home reaches the high road to pre-war prosperity, an unfortunate strike or lock-out conies along to nullify all the good work done. An oilieial summary of the trade disjmtes involving a stoppage of work which occurred m the United Kingdom in 1921, shows that the aggregate loss of lime was much in excess of that m any previous year, The number of disjmtes which began in 1921 was 800, and the total number of work-people involved was nearly 1,890,1)00. A further 30,000 were involved in disputes in progress in 1921 which began in 1920. The aggregate loss ot working time in all. disputes in 1921 was 80,000,000 days. The number of disjmtes was less than one-half the total for 1920, and much below the. totals lor cither [!)I8 or 1919. Owing, however, to the magnitude of the coalmining dispute, the number of people involved in 1921 was little less limn in 1920, and greater than in any previous year except 1919, but the aggregate . loss ot time through. disputes in 1921 vas much in excess of any previous year. The decline in employment, which was in progress at the end of 1920, continued during the first quarter of 1921, and by the end of March employment in most of (he principal industries was bad. The prolonged, dispute in the coalmining' industry, causing a general stoppage of. work at the juts from the beginning of April until the first week in July, resulted in a scarcity of fuel which ‘gyeatly accentuated the effects of the depression in trade; and at the beginning of July, of near y 1 1',000,000 work-people m industries insured against unemployment other than coal-mimng, L per cent, were unemployed, and large numbers of others were on short time. Now, just when the wheels of industry were again turning with some measure ot smoothness, comes the great engineering lock-out, and i Jonntrv has Tecoved anotlioi serious lian.lieap. the Uiccts ot which will be felt tor many a lone- dav. The statement made in the House of Commons, and published in yesterday’s cob les that “since January hl p been a reduction ot 15-.000 in the number of unemployed, showed that fair progress was being made, but the accompanying

statement that “there were still 1,792,000 workers in Britain-with-out work,” emphasises the condition of the labour market at Home, and makes the latest dispute all the more regrettable. The already great distress among tho workers will be considerably accentuated, and the stoppage of the engineers will reflect adversely on related industries. The dispute apparently concerns wages and conditions of employment, tho latter point receiving the most attention. The engineers, in common with other workers, received various bonuses to meet the increase in the cost of living. The shipbuilding employers, pointing out Hint the cost of living has now fallen, proposed to deduct bonuses amounting to 26/6, which reduction was not so great as in some other industries. The great slump that occurred in British shipbuilding “apres le guerre” makes reasonable the employers’ argument that the industry could not continue to pay the previous high wages. The engineers, however, declined to accept the proposed reductions, dvnother bone of contention appears to be the Question of overtime. '.rhe employers, no doubt wishing to make ships while the orders "are available.. wish to call upon the men's services after the usual hours: but the men refuse io meet these demands on iheir time, their refusal no doubt being partly due to a natural objection io overtime, and partly because they want io make the work go round the largest number of "workers. The question of who shall conduct the business also enters into the dispute, both pariies claiming managerial powers. Str Allan Smith (Chanman of the Committee of the Engineering Employers Federation) is reported as stating that “if the unions conceded the principle that the employers had a right io manage the factories, the Vmplovers would be pleased to ('oitler with the men regarding the manner m which the mana, gerial Eunctions would operate. He concluded by stating that “the emjdoyers did not want io smash the unions.” ThiA attitude savours very much of meetino- the workers half-way, and it is°to be hoped that the engineers will not stand in ibe way oE their own interests by adopting a dictatorial attitude. Such a course of action will pay neither part),, ’the employers know that the union funds will not survive the strain of a long battle, but on the other hand, every day the men :m . not working means a serious loss of trade, which will be diverted to Continental firms. Germany, for instance, is ready and willing io' accept all work oft'eriio'', and nothing would please ‘her better than to secure f t)l - h ()r own yards the shipbuildjn<>' orders now given io Britain. Weals have been made io the Government by the engineers with the object of having sei up a Commission of Emiuiry. hut the Government's representative pointed out in the House of Commons (hat intervention was impossible while ballots were proceeding in forty-seven unions; the unions themselves would |,nve resented such intervention if the employers had demanded it. Some idea of the magnitude of Hie dispute was given by W \llen Smith when he stated that the ditliculty of the employers was that they had to deal with seventv-iwo trade. unions. However, much can.be done in a very short lime if a spirit of give-and-take is adopted by both sides. The parlies have everything to o'nin bv an early settlement and the Government's appeal to both sides to “compose their ditter-em-es” should be heeded. Otheiwise, it will he the duty of the Government in Ute country's interests to intervene and plainly indicate their duty to the disputing parties.