THE H.B. TRIBUNE. THURSDAY, JULY 22, 1920. THE BROKEN HILL STRIKE.

Hawke's Bay Tribune, Volume X, Issue 186, 22 July 1920, Page 4

THE H.B. TRIBUNE. THURSDAY, JULY 22, 1920. THE BROKEN HILL STRIKE.

According to one of yesterday’s Sydney cables the Broken Hill strikers have, by an overwhelming majority, decided to accept the proposal for a conference with the owners under an independent chairman. There thus seems to bo a fair prospect of the strike being shortly brought to an end after lasting some fourteen or fifteen months. The solution that is now being sought for the difficulties that arose is one which, we believe, has been open to the men almost from the firu. A Sydney exchange, in the course of comments upon what it terms “the longest and the stupidest strike on record,’’ says that, but for its inordinate duration, it differed not at all from the smaller strikes that are of almost daily occurrence. But it resolved itself into a stupid handling of a problem of massed psychology. The men had grievances, and these grievances, “instead of being treated with the waters of conciliation, were flooded with the oil of inflammatory oratory about class-consciousness and the soulless capitalistic system, and the other stock-talk which is used on such occasions.” This sort of thing met with an obstinate Fabian policy from the other side, and, led up to it, by union officials who should have known better, the men went on strike, instead of referring their grievances to arbitration. “Having once gone on strike, it was a point of honour, and also of policy, that the men should not go back until tho owners gavie in unconditionally—honour for the men, policy for tho leaders. The companies just sat tight. Their dividends were cut out, but their shares actually appreciated in value,, so there was little need for them to worry.” Left to themselves, the men would probabhhave seen that to expect unconditional surrender from opponents so strongly entrcnched was hopeless, but they were not left to themselves, and urged on by their leaders they held out against hope, and against reason. Early in the strike it was apparent to everybody that tho result must be arbitration of some kind. “But the teeth of the unionists were now set in their strike grip, as the teeth of a bulldog become set in its enemy, and just as unintelligently. It was the duty of the leaders to point out that arbitration was available. They did ndt do their duty. ’ ’

Meanwhile, the leaders of other unions congratulated the strikers on the magnificent struggle they were making for the principle of direct action, and called levies on their devoted followers to keep Broken Hill in idleness. By so doing, they helped to keep the strike going. Many of tho workers, mostly the unmarried ones, drifted away from Broken Hill, to find jobs elsewhere. “Others stayed behind, and leaned against posts, and talked about union solidarity, and the grand fight they had begun for freedom. The strike became an ingrained habit. Everybody lived, somehow, without working. Some of the children and women may not have had enough food, but what’did that matter while there were posts to lean against. ’ ’ Finally the women began to murmur, and the strike leaders took alarm. A proposal for arbitration, similar to several previous proposals, gave them a loophole for escape from an awkward position, and they took it, as they should have taken the earlier opportunities, if they had really had the interests of their union at heart, instead of their own. “What,” concludes the Sydney writer, “has been gained by the men? A holiday of fourteen monhts, without pay—except for the contributions of other unions. By th ? companies? A loss of dividends at a time when metal was bringing the highest prices on record. The net result of the strike to unionism should make unions consider whether direct action really pays. It should mak them put more trust in leaders who speak for peace, and make them, toi, scrutinise very carefully the motives and capacity of leaders who preach th i strike as a remedy for grievances.”