CORRESPONDENCE.

Grey River Argus, 23 August 1928, Page 7

CORRESPONDENCE.

RIVAL POLICIES IN MINERS’ UNIONS. (To the Editor.) Sir, —During the recent. Union elections at Blackball, it was made apparent that there are two distinct policies within the miners’ organisation. The first policy is that of the class struggle, setting out that conferences ■with the employers, “negotiations round t|)e table ” are insufficient to maintain or improve, conditions. For this it is necessary to have a Union ready and organised to fight the bott. The worldwide depression in the coal industry compels the owner, whether h e like it or’not, to attack many so-called privileges for which the West Coast miner has had to struggle in the past. This explains the tribute system, the “turn” clause in th e proposed new agreement, the present victimisation proposals at Blackball, and the attempts to encroach on the wet time and on the minimum wage. Under these circumstances, the “negotiator round the table” cannot persuade the boss to abandon the offensive; instead, he is used as a tool to keep the workers unprepared and to pave the way .for complete surrender. The only real alternative to abject submission is to prepare for the struggle to maintain conditions. It is the latter course that is the policy of class struggle, and that is the policy of the Communist Party. The second is that of class peace, of the permanent improve meat of working conditions by “negotiations round the table.” This policy is sponsored by Havelock Wilson, the Spencer Reform Union, and the “Mondites” in England; by the Welfare League in New Zealand, by your evening contemporary the “Star.” ami by Mr Balderstono in Blackball. As yours is a Labour paper, with a large circulation in the mining camps, 1 consider it a suitable forum wherein these rival policies can be debated. Mr Balderstone has recently publicly announced his conversion to the policy of “negotiations round the table,” and his disapproval of Communist policy in the Miners’ Unions. If his policy b e in the interests of the workers, be must be prepared to defend it. ar.d explain it more fully. I am accordingly challenging him, once as a rank and file miner and a supporter of the Communist policy of class struggle, to debate, through your paper, the respective merits of these two policies. The Communist Party states its aims frankly and without fear, because they are absolutely, first and last ,in line with working class interests. Is the advocate of industrial peace prepared to do likewise?

I herewith summarise the main points in our programme. f° r the mining industry:—Organisational: Reorganisation of the United Mine Workers to make it a National Industrial Union, instead of a federation of districts. Immediate demands: Seven-hour shift miqimum weekly wage of £5 10s, a national agreement. General policy We contend that an adverse “economic situation” does not justify surrender, but rather calls for preparations for a struggle to maintain and improve our conditions of work. In the course of this struggle the miners will b e forced to unite with all other ■workers as a class, for the purpose of overthrowing the capitalist State and organising production in their own interests.

The policy of the Communist Party receives an eloquent testimonial in Soviet Russia. In the case of the miners. despite the ravages of the White Guards, wages have steadily increased, the- sjx-hour shift has been introduced, and all miners receive an annual holiday of one month on full pay. Can Mr Balderstone show similar results for his. policy of “negotiations rouud the table?” Recent history records' the defeat of the State miners (in the pillar dispute), precisely by “negotiations round the table.” “Negotiations round, the table” have just offered us an agreement abandoning the- rotary system; “negotiations round the table ’’ are being employed to effect the withdrawal of the dismissed notices a/. Blackball. The one hope for victory in ibis case lies not in the negotiations but in the solidarity of the men, and their determination to fight victimisation to Ihc last ditch. As long as capitalism continues, Unions nimdi have con terences with the employers; but the determining factors in such conference?, are the respective fighting strengths of master and wage slave. By organising all our forces for th e inevitable struggles that lie ahead we shorten the fight and make victory more secure. To r.dyocato industrial pence and negotiations round the table, in place of this preparation, is to delude the worker and to pave the way for ignominous surrender.—l am, ere, A. EAGLESHAM. Blackball, August 22nd.