FRIGHTENING CAPITAL AWAY

Hawke's Bay Tribune, Volume XVIII, Issue 233, 14 September 1928, Page 4

FRIGHTENING CAPITAL AWAY

far we have had cabled to us only one British press comment upon the Australian watersiders’ strike, that of the London “Daily Telegraph,” which appears to-day. No doubt, however, there have been or will be other journals in the Old Country that will draw marked attention to it. This brings us to an aspect of these frequent industrial revolts in the Commonwealth that seems to escape the notice that it deserves, and more especially on the part and in the interests of the general body of wage-earners of all classes. AVe can always arrive at some approximation of the more or less direct losses that are involved in strikes for the employers. for the employees, and even for the home community. It is impossible, however, to make any estimate of what is being lost to the country through the impressions that must inevitably be created abroad, and thus stand in the way of progress. Both’in the Commonwealth and in this. Dominion we are apt to make complaint that British capitalists are not taking their proper part either in assisting to the development of our natural resources or in establishing or extending secondary industries. The complaint would seem, on the face of it, to be a perfectly reasonable one having regard to all that has been and is being said about co-operation between the different parts of tho Empire and about the need for the oversea dominions finding room and work for British migrants. It might on these and other grounds be expected that British capitalists would see their way to doing very much more than they have hitherto done or. as yet, show any definite disposition to do.

But when we come to consider these so often recurring and apparently irrational labour troubles in Australia we may get some understanding of at least one factor that operates against British capital launching out in industrial enterprises on this side of the world. The Old Country herself Ims had quite a sufficiency of labour troubles. But there has generally been at the back of them, in the form of relatively low wages and hard living conditions, at least some show of reason on the side of the workers. This may be said in their favour even if the economic conditions of the time made it impracticable to meet their demands. In Australia, how ever, no such excuses can be made. Yet there, with good wages and fairly comfortable living conditions, industrial unrest is very much more in evidence than at Home. From time to time, almost from month to month, in one part or other of the Commonwealth, and not seldom all over it, there is some movement that disorganises its industries and services. In most cases, as in the two latest affecting Australian shipping, the grounds advanced must, seem to the minds of British employers ef labour to be hope lessly inadequate. What wonder, then, if they hesitate about risking their capital in ventures that may at any moment be held up upon the flimsiest pretext 7 Surely this is a feature that must have struck all thinking trade unionists anxious for the welfare of their fellow workers. But, still, we find trade unionists as a body doing nothing whatever to check these almost suicidal manifestations. That anything like

a majority really approve of them it is difficult to believe. Why, then, does the groat majority not do something at least in tho way of expressing disapproval of minority actions that are working to the obvious detriment of all? Australia and New Zealand are so closely associated in most British minds that what happens there is held to be equally liable to happen here, and so affects us intimately. It was said yesterday that "the Australian and New Zealand Council of Trade Unions would now have power to intervene in tire dispute.” How is the Dominion represented on that council, and is there any chance of her raising the voice of reason to guide its decisions and actions?