WHARF HISTORY Renewed Attention To Union Aims

Greymouth Evening Star, 20 February 1947, Page 9

WHARF HISTORY Renewed Attention To Union Aims

“Ddbiii For Those Who Seek To Destroy” [SPECIAL REPORTER] WELLINGTON, This Day. Renewed 'attention is being given to the chequered history of the dttempfs made by the Government to rfeguldte the wsiteTfroht industry by commission control, and especially to the attitude adopted by the New Zealand Waterside Union. Since the resignation of Mr. Justice Oingley from the position of chairman of the Waterfront Industry Commission, arid the decision of the Government, after effecting an independent arrangement with the union, to reconstitute the commission, it has been commented in interested quarters that these developments are another phase in an unhappy record.

Reference has. again been made to the comments made by Mr. H. Barnes, of Auckland, national president of the union, and a union representative on the Waterfront Industry Commission, in his review of 1946, published in the December issue of the Federated Waterside Workers’ official journal. That was immediately after the waterfront crisis developed seriously, when the union expressed dissatisfaction with Mr. Justice Ongley’s decision oh its claims. Among the comments made by Mr. Barnes were these: Long-range Demand. “From a union point of view, the year’s most significant move has been the reconstruction of the Waterfront Commission ... the late commission had completely lost the confidence of -the majority of its members. I believe it was doomed to failure from the start. ' “Broadly speaking, workers can be governed in two ways—along the lines of genuine co-operation and. good will, or per medium of the big stick. The latter method contains within itself seeds of revolt and must inevitably collapse. “Our long-range demand must still be to secure for ourselves the maximum possible control of our own industry.” In the current issue of the waterside workers’ journal, Mr. Barnes, in a report on the Federation of Labour conference which last month discussed the waterfront crisis, expresses the belief that the Government has reached the stage “inevitably facing all Social Democratic Governments.” It could follow the course of orthodox capitalism, 01 there were the alternatives of genuinely socialising industry foi tvbenefit of the community, and breaking away from orthodox financial channels, recognising that the crippling burden of debt could never be paid, and plotting a course to “enable the people of this country, as distinct from the bond holders, to enjoy the full fruits of their production.”

Help in Election. ' “I think,” states Mr. Barnes in this report, “that no organisation has given more money, nor greater help in returning the Government, th ar J has been given by our union. Our activities date back a long time before 1935.” Speaking of the Waterfront Industry Commission, Mr. Barnes states: '“We hoped that the direct representation of both parties would make the issue clear-cut and. that no longei would the Government line up on .behalf of. the shipping combine. Our hopes were futile. From start to finish the shipowner has been on the side-line watching the Government, fight his battle. Perhaps the culminating point was at the conference when the Prime Minister called us ‘political blacklegs.' ” Mr. Barnes claims that the Federation of Labour conference revealed a solid core of trade unionism auguring well for the workers of New Zealand and foretelling “doom for those who seek to split and. betray the Labour movement.”

He continues: “At the time of writing our future course has yet to be decided. The meeting held by the commission proved to be abortive. Convinced of the righteousness of our case, our national council has mandated the national executive to mobilise for further action if our grievances are not legitimately met. Outside Support. “We fight for workers’ elementary rights and if action has to be taken it will be taken, backed by every decent trade unionist in this country and strengthened by our affiliations overseas. Let me at this stage pause to pay tribute to the courageous role pursued by the Transport Workers’ Federation. Well indeed did it come through its baptism of fire.” Mr Barnes expresses the opinion that the result of the Federation of ■ Labour conference could not occasion the Prime Minister or his colleagues any satisfaction. In the same issue, under the headings’ “It Seems to Me . . . To-mor-row is Another Day,” the national •secretary of the union (Mr. T. Hill) sneaks of “the remote fastnesses of Parliament Hill, where the far-off sound of the class struggle must seem sometimes like the uneasy stirrings of a long-dimmed conscience. Of the vote at the Federation of Labour conference, Mr. Hill states: “If the vote was all they wanted, lethem tuck it under their pillows--and may they sleep easily. may need a good night’s rest, for tomorrow is another daj. Conference Lesson. “There are some who like to believe that the conference taught us watersiders a lesson. We agree that R did-but not the kind of lesson thev think. We came away knowing something that apparently they have vet to learn. The lesson we teamed from the conference is that IhP discontent of the mass ol the neople-in nTv Zealand as all over the world—is very real indeed. In the main, the people are frustiated and disillusioned.” Mr. Hill states that the watersiders’ representatives took heaiv <rom the evidence that more and we men in the trade union movement were beginning to see the s Sn He adds: “These men showed their belief in the policy drawn up many years ago by the pioneers of the Labour movement (even though ‘some of its authors; present at the

conference, seemed to be embarrassed by being reminded of it). These men declined to believe that *ihere is a new, kind boss coming into our lives. , , “These men refused to be harnessed to the Government machine. 'These men knew that the men and women who are doing the woildo work have the right to fret and fume and strike so long as the inequities of the capitalist system exist. These men know that unrest will continue and will grow until rents, interest, and profits are brought down from their greedy heights and until the worker can live on 40 hours work instead of 50 or 60. .. “They demand that stabilisation must stabilise those who are making •the profits, and increase the. wages, and living standards of those who worked to make the profits. _ And to those who feel to-day that victory at the conference was theirs, these men have this to say: ‘Sleep easily if you will but take heed from the Bourbons and listen to the marching fee;, and remember there is a to-morrow ag well aS to-'day.’ ”