BRITISH LABOUR

Grey River Argus, 26 May 1947, Page 8

BRITISH LABOUR

N.Z. UNIONIST’S VIEW WELLINGTON, May 19. The “Southern Cross” publishes an interesting letter from Mr. P. M. Butler, the well-known New Zealand Labour leader, now in London. On May 3 he despatched the following:— This has ended a hectic week in London. Industrial stoppages on the waterfront and at Billingsgate, threatened a reduction in rations. The wharf trouble had its genesis in Glasgow, where the port authorities stood down some 500 men as "redundant.” This “redundancy” is a new term used in industrial relations, directly arising from post-war adjustments. During the war, thousands of workers were taken from posts subject to enemy attack and employed at comparatively safe ports on the west coast. Shipping is now returning to normal channels with' the consequence that the Joint Council (workers and employers) has recognised the overflow or “redundancy” of many workers and are attempting to make provisions accordingly. Tied up with this problem is the over-riding desire of the unions to abolish casual work on the waterfront. The Glasgow trouble, which was handled by the Scottish Transport Workers’ Union, carried on for some two weeks, and attempts to secure stop-work assistance from Liverpool and London failed. It turned out that, of the 500 men affected, approximately 200 had been engaged since the war ended, and also the 300 war workers had been offered immediate re-instatement, together with a meeting of the Joint Council to consider the position of the balance. The transport workers in London thought this the best plan and remained at work, but at the end of last week (April 27) the Dockers and Lightermen’s Union decided to throw in their weight behind the Glasgow workers. Although the smaller of the two unions, the Dockers and Lightermen’s Union members hold key positions and their ceasing work ultimately had the effect of holding up the entire port. Whether the transport workers’ men considered theii’ comrades’ action justified, is beside the point; they did not directly cease operations yet, they would not the dockers and so the hold-up was accomplished—not on the justice of the point at issue, but on the historical principle of “no black-legging.” Who will say they were wrong? What could any ordinary union man do? Speaking later on this aspect of industrial stoppages, Mr. Herbert Morrison in his first public speech since his illness said: “There seems to be an idea in the heads of many workers that if there is a strike they must be in it and that it would be a betrayal of trades union principles to stay at work.

“I understand their sentiments in what it, for them, a difficult situation, and I wish to say no harsh things, or join in mere abuse. However, I would observe that it depends on who calls the strike, and the attitude of the union concerned.” As a union official, I agree that 'his advice is very sound up to a point—and the point up to which it Is sound is: “and the attitude of the union concerned.” This statement appears to make a distinction between “union” and “union membership/’ Any union official will tell von that such a distinction is impossible. It boils down to this: if a stoppage of work occurs for any reason and a meeting of contiguous workers is held to consider their attitude to it. then it is a safe bet that the bias will be in favour of the strikers, <-ven though their case is not strong. This is just what happened in London. and will continue to happen afi over, as long as authorities allow small grievances to grow into serious dimensions. The solidarity of the workers, especially when fellow workers arc in trouble, comes uppermost Yu! no lectures will alter that.

But the questions we. have to ask mj.rs<*l\es are: Is this psychology of he workers being exploited? Are we onteiing into a new era of industrial tactics? Is this a new dev u ipmer.t In world strategy? Whatever the answers to these questions ar?, the fact remains that this week Gordon was threatened with a paralysis of a kind Hitler was unable to bring about. 4< KEEP LEFT.” Yesterday, a team of 15 Labour members issued a joint manifesto entitled Keep Left. (The Labour Party Conference opens on May 26!) In New ealand, we would cub the writers of the pamphlet “intelligentsia;” here, the friends of the manifesto call them the “Ginger Group.” The group includes several authors and journalists, some playwriters, two nr three barristers, an accountant and a schoolteacher.

The pamphlet is an interesting work and had it not been issued on the eve of the conference would have had more value, but for all that, it contains some striking passages. For instance, “Tell the people,” it says. “Don’t imagine you tell all th» □eople when you issue a White Paper nr answer a question in Parliament Don’t be afraid of Party controversy This is a Socialist Revolution not a National Savings Week.”

Again: “Pass an Act to make production committees compulsory, to define and extend their powers and t<-> link them up with the regional and national production boards.” The pamphlet advocates a Ministry of Economic Affairs, with a Minister free from other duties, in order, to direct central planning. It also urges the abandonment of the policy /they term it doctrine) of autonomy of ministers in charge of departments. in its openin gstatement, the pamphlet emphasises the importance of certain decisions to be taken at the conference and to the casual observer it would appear as though the authors are a bit anxious to beat the gun, and most people in the movement don’t cotton on to gun-beaters-

ROLL OF HONOUR.

CLARK: In loving memory of Pte. J. J. Clark, our dearly beloved brother, killed in action in Crete, May 26, 1941; aged 24 years. A wonderful nature, loving arid kind, A beautiful memory left Lenmd; A helping hand, a heart of gold, The dearest friend this world could hold. Forget you, dear, we never will, We loved you in life, we love you still; When days are dark and friends are few, Dearest brother, how we think of you. —lnserted by his lovrng sister Gladys, brother-in-law Henry, and niece Marlene. Denniston.

CLARK: In loving memory of Pte. J. J. Clark, the dearly beloved son of Mr and Mrs John Clark, of Denniston, killed in action in Crete, Mav 26, 1941; aged 24 years. Gone from us that smiling face, Those pleasant, cheerful ways, The heart that won so many friends In happy bygone days. In our hearts your memory lingers, And we know its vain to weep Tears of love will nevex- wake you F’rom your peaceful sleep. In a distant land he lies, At rest in a soldier’s grave, His battle fought, his name enrolled On the scroll of the deathless brave. —lnserted by his loving Mum, Dad and brother, Walter. Denniston.