Grey River Argus and Blckball News MONDAY, DECEMBER 5, 1921. GRATUITOUS ADVICE TO MINERS.

Grey River Argus, 5 December 1921, Page 4

Grey River Argus and Blckball News

MONDAY, DECEMBER 5, 1921. GRATUITOUS ADVICE TO MINERS.

Delivered every mo.ning In I. .ct: h a, Hokitika. Dobson, Walisend, Ta ;.c, Cru__..-a, Ngahere blackball, Nelson Cr.<k Brunner. Te Kingha Rutonianu, Poenia. lucbbonnie, Patai-a, Ruru, Kaimaia, Kotnku, Mcjiu. A/atlka, Bunanga, DunolJie, Cobden, Baxters, Kokiri, Ahaura, Ikamatua, Sthlwatrr. Waiuta, Reefton, Ross. Ri.au.pua, Mananui, H ri Hart, Waiho Gorge, W’t hek.a. Rewaoui. Otira. Inangahua Junction. Westport Wazinangaroa, Denniston, Granity, Millerton. N nkawki M.xtor. Seddoavillc, Cape Foulwind. and Karam-*' ‘

As long as there is a Capitalist press, every labour dispute will doubtless continue to draw columns of cri- j ticism upon tho heads of the workers, in tho form of gratuitous advice to ignore their own leaders, and obey the bosses. Tho present coal dispute already illustrates this, for a couple of evenings ago- tho Greymouth Evening “Star” resumed its role of ad-viser-in chief to the miners. The advice it would tender, however, is based upon a series of misrepresentations. For instance, it begins with the assertion that the present coal dispute “is not a question, this time, so much of hours or wages, as tho control of tho mines.” What a poor essav at. camouflaging the issue! The “Star” knows well that on this occasion all tho miners seek is tho retention of rights they have vindicated by years of effort, to hold, in fact, what the owners only last year agreed to, namely , the National Agreement. That Agreement contains not one item to suggest the minors seek to obtain control of tho mines The boot is indeed on the other foot In abrogating (through the ready and willing instrumentality of the "Arbitration” Court) the agreement mentioned, the

. owners aim to extend their control j over not only tho mines, but the miners. The second misrepresentation of ' the “Star” lies in its declaration : that “at present, the number of ‘diehards’ is insignificant, in comparison to the agregato of employees” Tho ‘‘Star” here claims that the majority of tho miners are of tho “die- ' easy” variety; but for a proof it, has • no mere than a pious hope that a 1 proof will turn up, as it goes on:— ‘ Ami it is to bo hoped that the com-mon-sense of tho West Coast miners . will prevail over unwise counsels from the few, and that they will follow the . example of their Kailangata mates, . rather than some of the other Southern men.” Such is the sluff of which Capitalist press advice is made! I Slumps, financial stringency, the Government’s coal importing policy, oct., I are then adduced as the justification for this “hope” that in return for an extra day’s work or two, tho miners generally will meekly connive at throwing away tho National Agreement, and will allow each other to bo exploited, without hindrance, by tlic employers. Whom then doos the “Star” wish to sco controlling the miners, as well as the mines? The man who counts the profits every time! The next “Star” misrepresentation i is contained in an allegation that the owners and unions “agreed that the Arbitration Court should decide points the parties could not agree upon, but that the miners refused to further put their case to the Court or accept its verdict. Now it is common knowledge the Miners Federation only consented I to submit disputed points to the Court ; conditionally on all existing local disputes at mines being amicably settled before there was even any round table ' conference to ascertain what general points should go to the Court. To attain such local settlements the Federation made the greatest efforts. The “Star” well knows how the owners’ response was a declaration that the stipulation had created a deadlock! Thus in going as they did subsequently to the Court, the owners did so without any understanding from the miners to accompany them. How could they doubt this, 'when they themselves had already declared that a deadlock existed? There is a further misrepresentation where tho “Star” says: — “It is quite beside the issue to en- ' quire if the Court’s award was ideal; I it was just on the evidence presented, i and considering tho minors’ discourtI csy towards the Court, they should be I the last to complain.” What we would like to know is: what sort of an award would the “Star” consider bad ' enough to justify tho miners in com--1 plaining? We reckon that as an award such a one would bo the dizzy limit! However, the miners are complaining ' less about the awards in principle than I about the owners underlying aim to j “divide and conquer” them. How I little the miners rank and file expect from the Court under any circumstances has long been shown by their refusal to have anything to do with it for years.