THE LEADERS OF THE STRIKE.

New Zealand Herald, Volume XXVII, Issue 8354, 6 September 1890, Page 3

THE LEADERS OF THE STRIKE.

TO THE EDITOR. Sik,—A few men at the present time in New Zealand are assuming to themselves all the power of the Giesars. They .actually threaten the Government itself, and are dictating from behind closed doors to the rulers of the land. It seems that every Union workman almost in the colony has suddenly left the allegiance of his former master, and stood bareheaded and bowkneed before this new and dreaded tyrant. The law itself seems powerless in the grip of this monster, for men openly conspire together to ruin their fellowmen, and no notice is taken of it. Now, what is all this struggle about? Is it merely the whim of the unseen, who wish to dabble in a bit of warfare ? Is it the petty spite of some disappointed one? Is it a desire to filter money through a few chosen hands ? or is it a design to damage the British Empire by wrecking her commerce and ruining her colonies It cannot be a desire to do the working man good, for it can only result in grievous harm to him. The various men have been praised for the manly way that they have come out when called on. I take an entirely different view of i..ns question. For men, with wives and families, who have slowly worked themselves into positions of trust, to strike in the way that many have lately done, is very little short of foolhardinesss. Without knowing a man, without seeing him, without knowing the reason why, at his secret call, all and sundry suddenly give up their employment, risk the starvation of their wives and families, risk all their future happiness and prospects, cause thousands of others to be cast out of employment as well, cause the loss of thousands of pounds to the colony,and generally bring widespread ruin and misery everywhere. And this is not all. They do their best themselves, and try and force all others to ruin, starve out, and crush all who do wot foil in with their

views. I always thought that "We should do unto others as we would that they should do unto usso that if this precept is applied practically to the strikers they surely caunofj grumble. Surely men ought to pause and consider their duty to their wives and little ones—let alone to their masters, their country, and their God— ti»ey take the serious step that many seem to look on as an every-day joke. It is a pity that a few men of reputed sense have seen fit to pander to the evil passions of probably some of the present strikers. I say some, for Ido not believe that all of those who struck believe for one moment in the principle of boycotting, which is at best a sort of half-bred barbarism. It is useless talking about arbitration, we have gone beyond that. If I strike a man a blow on the nose, or call him a liar I do not think that my opponent would be inclined to refer the matter to arbitration. Sir Robert Stout might go in for it, but then he is of an exceptionally plastic temperament, and so if a man deserts his employer in the hour of need —breaks faith with himand in addition do_es_ his best to ruin him — then I think it is the babbling of an idiot to talk of arbitration. I have no doubt the various unions have done a great deal of good in their own way, but they have destroyed their usefulness by coalition and attempted coercion of all things. There are bounds beyond which the labourer must not pass, or he assumes mastership. Every workman knows these bounds, and it is only the herding together of the various unions that has caused the workmen in the present strike to pass that boundary. No man is forced to work for another, except the unfortunates under Mr. Reston's care. If capital is making such an enormous profit, and labour is dissatisfied with its ' share of it, the natural sequence should be that labour should start a co-operative factory of Its own, but it should not therefore have a monopoly of any particular trade. Union funds spent in this way would give more satisfaction than when they are spent oil beating the air. All this fight is about; nothing, and it canuot affect the good of the working man. The latter may ruin capital, may burst up the country, may drive every enterprising man out of it; and then how has he bettered his position ? The working man «.«»>* kcepstrikingand boycotting for a hundred years, but he can never force capital to work for him against its will. For the last five or six years capital has been pretty well working for the working man, but it was doing it of its own free will. It may be a pity for the working man that he has tried to use compulsion; the working man may just as well attempt to stay the flow of the tides with his hands as interfere with the law of supply and demand. Labour and capital must also go hand in hand. There must be good feeling between workman and employer. There must be trust and respect between the one and the other. But if workmen band themselves together in t» system of affiliated Unions, and at the simple nod and beck of a supreme head allow themselves to be made tools of for the working of oppression and boycott,then, I sa. v , that there can be no respect between the workman and his employer. There can be no trust between the two. There can be no good feeling, and there can be no going hand iu hand.

The law of supply and demand will eventually remove our difficulties. Boycotting and blocking the business of this country on account of an Australian quarrel is surely not the way to improve matters. Can the thinking workiugman really hope to better his position by this method of procedure? Even if he gains his point after wrecking the colony, where will the kindly feeling between master and man be ? The workingman is at present doing his very oest to reduce the capitalists', or rather employers' ability and intimation to employ him. am, &c., W. F. Buckland.