The Grey River Argus TUESDAY, July 19, 1949. TRADES UNIONISTS’ RESPONSIBILITIES

Grey River Argus, 19 July 1949, Page 4

The Grey River Argus TUESDAY, July 19, 1949. TRADES UNIONISTS’ RESPONSIBILITIES

[\yrrn the publicity given their activities far and wide, the Communists doubtless come in for blame on occasion that is undeserved, and frequently others, whose apathy has been blameworthy are ready po shoulder their own responsibility upon Communists. In Australia, where, certainly, industrial unions have been led into trouble by Communists. as now in the case of the miners and earlier in that of the watersiders, the rank and tile have willingly followed their lead, and now they are beginning to lament their docility and lack of interest in union policy. The miners have a case, and it may, probably will, in due course be vindicated more effectually by conciliatory procedure, for the general strike has simply meant delay in deciding the issues. The national loss of more than £40,000,000 will not soon be made good, including the wages of perhaps half a million workers, and that may be a reason why so many are now rounding on the Communists, whose concern is not really wages or conditions, but merely revolution. The watersiders of Australia, have had cause to rue a Communist victory on the waterfront, in the loss of the Stevedoring Commission, due to Communist leaders trying to tie up forty-five ports because one of their party was sentenced for utterances against the Arbitration Court. The same leaders induced the rank and file to defy the Commission, which consequently came to an end. In the coal dispute the Governments are determined that the legal machinery for regulating the industry shall be the medium of a settlement, |an.d that the Communist strike leaders shall not be able to step out of their responsibility through some alternative arrangement. There is no doubt this upheaval will mean the downfall of Red control over many thousands of workers, but there is the urgency of replacement by union leaders whose goal is not revolution and class war. In the Dominion at present there is developing a waterfront trouble which illustrates how foolishness may deprive workers of valuable advantages. At Auckland the Waterfront Authority was set at nought, with the result that the workers at the port lost it. Xow that it is wanted back, the course adopted to recover it is precisely the course by which it was lost in Auckland. It does not make sense in the light of very obvious considerations. First, the Commission system was not won in the first place Ify industrial or direct action, but was the Government’s contribution to the workers’ welfare. Secondly, direct action rendered it inoperative, Thirdly, direct action in Australia, has delayed rather than promoted the betterment of the niners’ lot. The average unionist s able to think for himself, and ■0 judge from experience whether’ lisruptive action is as progressive

iii fact as conciliatory action. In the Australian Arbitration Court the basic wage case has been certainly sabotaged by the Communists, who have done their utmost to harms the advocates for the Australia'n. Council of Trade Unions who are pleading the case'for a 'better all round wage. The Communists would prefer to sec the A.C.T.U. case collapse, because they prefer revolution to reform. There is now evidence that the Australian coal strike has deeply offended ninetenths of the people, but that does not assure its early collapse. It is the friction itself, not the consequences, .that the Communists bargain for. and that they will stop at nothing to prolong. The question for the ordinary trades unionist, therefore, is just whether he wants strife or peace in industry. There is nothing else to this policy of striking first and negotiating afterwards. It ought to be the other way about, with negotiations first, and direct action only as a last resort.