The Hawera Star. THURSDAY, MAY 21, 1925. TO COUNTER GO-SLOW

Hawera Star, Volume XLV, 21 May 1925, Page 4

The Hawera Star.

THURSDAY, MAY 21, 1925. TO COUNTER GO-SLOW

Delivered every evening by 5 o'clock -i. Hawera, Manaia Norinanby, Okaiawa, Kltbnm, Mangatoki, Kapunga Alton. Uurleyville, Patea, Waverley. Mokoia, Wbakamarn, Ohangai. Meremere, Fraser Road, an Ararata

That the Government’s attention be drawn to the go-slow policy on waterfronts, and that the Government take steps to prevent periodical hold-ups. The poor old Government! As if it most of all has not realised the menace to the general welfare of the country contained in the anti-spcial attitude of those who .promote unrest on the wharves! No fault is to be found -vvith the South Taranaki executive of the .Farmers’ Union for placing the above remit before the annual conference, nor with the conference for allowing the complaint to go forward. But what can the Government do? Directly opposed to the interests of practically every man, woman and child in the country though it be, “go-slow” is not a crime in the eyes of the law. It might without much difficulty be shown to belong to the - same family of offences as treason, but as yet it is an offence only against commonsense and the common weal, not; against the law of the land. How, in these circumstances; the Government may “take steps to prevent” the almost continual interference with the normal running of the shipping industry is not easily seen. If anyone has a practicable plan to lay before the authorities, we imagine that the Minister for Labour will gladly come running to meet him, fall on his neck and kiss him. \Failing any such workable suggestion, the most effective means of combating this disease —for it is nothing else —is, as Mr O. Hawken, M.P., suggested at the conference on Tuesday, through the public mind. Any responsible citizen of New Zealand who is convinced that it is for the good of the people generally that- ships should be held up indefinitely at some of our ports, that men should be paid good wages for doing what is less than half a fair day’s work, and that freights should be raised to meet these added operating costs, is entitled to say so and to come out in open advocacy of the. go-slow policy. This is a free country, and every man is entitled to his own opinion. But because it is a free country is precisely the reason why a mere handful of men, belonging to one section of the community, should not be allowed to throw sand in the workings of national‘industry. One man’s freedom ends where it trespasses on the liberty of aiiother. If John Jones develops a passion for exercising his toe and proceeds to kick half a brick down the street and back again, he is fully entitled to demonstrate his freedom of action in that manner, provided always that lie does not make a nuisance of hilmself. But if, deserting the half brick, he carries on similar exercise with his neighbour John Brown as object, he oversteps the bounds of his own freedom. When a watersider goes slow on the job or seizes upon some tin-pot excuse for not working, he. is kicking John Brown. There may be some —usually those secure in comfortable billets of their own —who demand to know if the poor working man is not master of his own labour. So far as anyone may be master of the talents entrusted to his keeping, he is; but the. labourer, the farmer, the professional man, and the large capitalist have all their duty/to the community. If any man does, not wish to work, it is quite open to him to go off and build a mai-mai in. the bush and to live there on fern-root and wild pork. His place in industry may then be filled by someone who does wish to work, and business will go on as usual. There is no compulsion about joining a football team —it is usually a ease of competing for a place —but once a player has been selected the obligation is on him to “tear into it.” “Passengers” are not wanted. So in industry. If a man chooses work on the wharves in preference to a hermit’s life in the bush, then it is up to him to throw hiriaself heart and soul into the work. The public is eminently fair-minded, and any man who is being asked to work for insufficient wages or under harsh conditions will have the .public support if he objects. His duty to the community does not require that he shall make personal sacrifices over and above the reasonable service which is asked of every man. But when men who are earning the very best of' wages, with substantial increases for any disagreeable work which may come their way, hold up the business of our ports, so running the housewife bare of flour, robbing the farmer of his manures, and hindering the shipping of our export wealth, it is time for the public to act. And because the public is fair-minded it will not for one moment believe that all the watersi ders at New Plymouth or anywhere else are restricting output of their own free will. The sensible married man with a family, who is working to buy his own home and to give his children a good start in life, does not. loaf if left to himself. The story is told in Australia of a labour agitator who went to the New Hebrides with the object of starting a union among the. nativei plantation workers. The nativesdid not take kindly to notion, and- lie did not succeed. One “boy” voiced what appeared to be the, general point of view when he said: “Me fella wanta work. S’pose Jack ’e no wanta work, all right; ’im ’e, business b ’long Jack. ” If the Jacks on the New Zealand wharves who, for reasons best known

to themselves, do not want to work, would make their grievances their own business and quietly disappear from the waterfront nobody would mios them. Then those men who ate quite satisfied with their conditions and wages—those who “wanta work’* —could carry on unmolested and the whole country would be better off. So long as the Jacks dominate the wharves and tyrannise their fellow-workers, so long will we have this trouble. And, while it may not be altogether clear how we are to get rid of it, there is one. way in which we may guard against its further spread. It is dragging a noble science in the. mud to associate politics with these industrial disputes, but the fact remains that one. political party in. New Zealand stands for the sort of thing that has been, and still is, playing havoc with the working of some of our ports. Supporters of this party have been through Taranaki angling for the farming vote with all sorts of specious promises of reduced taxation and improved facilities for land settlement. Supposing, there were anything in the promises—and it is a far supposition —what benefit would the farmer reap from, say, a reduction of a half-penny' in the income tax if he had to pay extra for all his manures aud was liable to miss the market with his produce through the refusal of the wharf labourers to load it? Far more effective than drawing the Government’s attention to the. go-slow canker will be to east a vote next election against' the party which sanctions and upholds such interference with the business and prosperity of the country.