Greymouth Evening Star. AND BRUNNERTON ADVOCATE. SATURDAY, MARCH 13th., 1937. STRIKE FEVER.

Greymouth Evening Star, 13 March 1937, Page 6

Greymouth Evening Star. AND BRUNNERTON ADVOCATE. SATURDAY, MARCH 13th., 1937. STRIKE FEVER.

|T is a significant comment upon Hie present state of affairs in Noav Zealand, to find that, notwithstanding the fact that a

Labour Government has been in lull power lor nearly eighteen months, strikes art* becoming more liTtpienf. temporarily paralysing •several important industries. Instead ol the Dominion rapidly becoming a paradise for workers, as pre-elect ion promises made by the Labour Party’s candidates gave tin* impression that it would do, the workers appear to be becoming more dissatisfied. with the unfortunate result that the strike fever is spreading. Not only is (he ordinary type ol' stoppage being used, bul what is known as the 1 “stay-in’ strike has made its ap-|

pearance, based on the procedure adopted in France and the United States. There are some disquieting fealures about this method of expressing hostility to rhe employers, and questions of public policy are involved. There is no doubt that the operation of a “stay-in” strike is an act of trespass. Except w'ith the know’ledge and consent of the owmers, the workers have no right to be on the premises of their employers after hours. A strike of this nature may amount .to little more than a nuisance and a source of inconvenience to the owmers of the premises; on the other hand, bad feeling may lead to. acts of sabotage, involving serious damage and loss. In either case, the owmers of premises so invaded are entitled to the protection of the law z , and it is the duty of the Government to see that this protection is given. The incidents connected with the “stay-in” strike of the Auckland freezingworkers laid the Government open to criticism, and unless a strong line is taken by the authorities, the door w'ill be opened to a condition of industrial chaos.

The Government, has a duty to all classes of the community, employers as well as workers, irrespective of political colour, and it | is hoped, for the sake of the I Labour Party, that the Government will take steps effectively to deal with “stay-in” strikes, before the already-serious tendency to use this method of putting the pistol at the head of the employing class becomes even more pronounced. There are also regret- | table features about the latest I strike, that of the chemical manI ure workers in the Auckland disI trict. It is easily understood that | disputes will occur in the indusI trial life of the country, but there is a right and a wrong way to seek the redress of what are considered as grievances. The labour law's of the Dominion provide ample avenues for the consideration of disputes, without recourse to the I strike weapon. Reports concerning the chemical workers’ dispute indicate that the men have taken the law' into their own hands. Unless their demands w'ere granted by the employers, in the course of Conciliation Council negotiations, they decided to resort to direct action, despite the fact that they invoked the Arbitration Court in initiating proceedings for a 'new' aw’ard. It appears to be a case of “heads I w’in, tails you lose,” and the employers could scarcely be

expected to submit tamely to such a situation. The sooner the Government decides to compel adherence to the procedure laid down by industrial legislation, the better 'it will be for all concerned. Incidentally, it seems strange that unionists, generally, do not extend towards the Government a greater pleasure of support and loyalty. Strikes reflect no credit upon any country, much less upon one that is under the administration of Labour, and if industrial disturbances continue, eyes Overseas will begin to look askance at New Zealand. The policy of “direct action,” adopted in the Auckland dispute, is a i ease in point. ]