THE STRIKE THE BALLOT AND INDUSTRIAL UNIONISM.

Lyttelton Times, Volume CXIV, Issue 16326, 23 August 1913, Page 14

THE STRIKE THE BALLOT AND INDUSTRIAL UNIONISM.

" jo THE EDITOE. Sir —I have read the report of a soeccii of Mr Semplo’s delivered m Christchurch on August 9, to a company of trades unionists. A most remarkable production, indeed. From the explanation given, under the new constitution a union wi! have no power to strike, neither will a local nidustrial department or a National Department. These branches will opor- ’ L only towards settling any dispute •;, nf ..rises and not till , tho matter ScheTthe National Executive will anv power to order a 6tiike. As Mr Semple puts the matter “It would require tho combined judgment, of eleven men elected by secret ballot f i ft ii the industries to declare a trike.” The Unionists of New Zealand, however, should note this fact, that if union, local department or national department is to be allowed to declare a strike, neither is any these allowed power to seek an reemont or award unless the same proceedings aro gone through as in the case of a strike. A reference t-o Article V. of the constitution will show t hat entering into a strike agreement rn- award is on the same lines throughout, This explanation of Mr Semple then, only confirms the statements of the United Labour Party, men who have said that. the new constitution makes the National Executive a (Supremo ruler in all matters of industrial dispute. . The one feature that is most comical is the innocent assumption that when employers in a particular industry have a dispute with t-hoir em-

ployce3, they will go through the process, laid down by the United Federation of Labour, of meeting first tho local union, second tho local department. third tho National Department and fourth tho National Executive. The application of tho least bit of common sense will convince anyone that tho employers will not do anything of the kind. They will meet the National. Executive right away—or nobody. Business men get quickly to those who have power to decide and do not fool around with those who have no power to decide. In practice the U.F.L. constitution means that every union and industrial department in the combination must hand its powers of decision over to tho National Executive. Mr Semple argues that this will prevent sectional strikes,, but if it does it will only be by widening the sphere of trouble until all are involved. These who know tho doctrines of industrial unionism that Mr Semple upholds, will understand that tho purpose is to create the conditions for a general strike. The local and national trade strikes are only looked upon by I.W.W. men as more practice for tha great conflict with capitalism, by means of tho general strike. In tho Federation of Labour Conference of Juno 1912, Mr R. Semple moved." That the Conference take intoimmediate consideration the advisability of introducing certain machinery clauses that will havo tho effect of transforming tho Federation kito a. National Union of workers on the lines of the 1.1V.W.” That was carried. A leading exponent of 1.W.W.-ism (Vincent St John) thus describes its philosophy:—“The tactics used are determined solely by the power of t&a organisation to make good in their use. The question of right or wrong does not concern us. Failing to foroe concessions from, the employers by the strike work is resumed and sabotage is used to force tho employers to concede tho demands of tho workers. Interference by the Government is resented iby open violation of the Government's orders, going to jail en, masse, Causing expense to tho tax- i payers—which is but another name for , tho employing class.” > There you have 1.W.W.-ism—the ; general strike, sabotage, defiance of • public authority—all founded tipon the, doctrine that the end justifies the: means:—The question of right or j wrong does not concern them.” And i Mr R. Semple has deliberately. sup- j ported forming “ a National Union of . Workers on the linos of the 1.W.W.” Does Mr Semple now advise, as Vincent St John and other Industrial Unionists do, that /‘ the question, of right or wrong does not concern us P” 1 If ho does not then he is bound to ; openly repudiate the Industrial Unionists who do preach this most “vicious and damnable ” doctrine. In his Christchurch speech Mr Semple is reported to have 6aid that the constitution of tho new organisation was tho most earnest and practical effort he had ever seen to prevent strikes. He did not believe in strikes. Truly most wonderful! and he was there to uphold a constitution that says distinctly:—“The United Federation of Labour will employ tho 6triko weapon local, general or national, whenever the circumstances demand such action.” Truly again, most marvellous! Ho says that the general strike bogey was a scarecrow to frighten the workers and that a general strike to-day in New Zealand is impossible; that when you are capable of using a general strike a general strike will not ha necessary. Verily, he must have been taking les-. sons from Professor Mills for I liave heard the Professor speak just that nay; and I heard the same man declare at tho Congress: “Yes, make no mistake about it, this is to be a ' 1 striking ’ organisation.” If, however, i tho general strike idea is a scarecrow why does the United Federation of. Labour havo it in the constitution P If a general strike is *' impossible ” and “ not necessary ” then to state in your , Constitution that “ The United Federation of Labour will employ the strike weapon local, general and na-; tional,” thereby affirming the general strike, is either to say you will employ what you do not mean to employ, or that you will employ a weapon that is “impossible” and “not necessary.” In giving up the business of “paralysing the industries” and taking on the role of peace-maker, Mr Semple has proved too much. —I am, cto.. , e *D. MCLAREN. Dominion Organiser United Labour Party. ,