THE New Zealand Herald AND DAILY SOUTHERN CROSS. WEDNESDAY, JULY 28, 1926. STRIKE NEGOTIATIONS.

New Zealand Herald, Volume LXIII, Issue 19391, 28 July 1926, Page 10

THE New Zealand Herald AND DAILY SOUTHERN CROSS. WEDNESDAY, JULY 28, 1926. STRIKE NEGOTIATIONS.

To find a mere willingness to negotiate a happy portent for termination of the British coal deadlock is indicative of the hopeless pass into which it has drifted. Since its cost has been officially stated as £150,000,000 or more, it is not remarkable that those condemned to stand by, spectators of events, should be seeking any sign, no matter how small, pointing to the chances of resumption. Yet willingness to negotiate is no guarantee of peace. Certainly there must be negotiation before resumption on any considerable scale can be expected ; the slow drift back of a few miners here, a few there, is no cause for extravagant optimism. Also there must be negotiations, difficult and intricate, before there is any settlement more permanent than an armistice during which the parties will renew their strength for future combat. That the disputants may be induced to meet and consider terms is far less important than the spirit in which they will come together again. In the past they have not been good bargainers, taking the willingness to make concessions for the sake of gaining concessions the essence of bargaining merit. A little while ago,, when the deadlock was only a month old, the Times, discussing a reported move toward debating terms, said "The incapacity of the leaders on the two sides, the fixity of their formulas, the absence of any constructive ideas, are not only so many obstacles to the understanding between them that would work to the advantage of both, but are a permanent brake on the progress of the industry. The bold aggressive qualities that should be employed in grappling with the internal problems of the industry—problems of mechanical and scientific development—and with its external adversities, are misapplied in the conduct of a fierce self-destroying struggle." There never has been any lack of negotiation in the coal industry. The difficulty is that it has produced so little of permanent value. The reason for this can be found in what the Times said about the spirit of the parties. A hint of what causes difficulties is to be found, too, in the report of the Coal Commission, which says"The owners should cease to countenance accusations against the miners of restriction of output. . . . The miners on their

part should cease to attach exaggerated weight to losses of output due to failures of the management to provide the colliers with proper supplies of tubs, rails, timber or othei" requisites." The commission did not deny there was'a substratum of truth beneath both accusations, but was obviously attacking the spirit beneath both. The difficulties of the industry from conditions far beyond the control of any party engaged in it should be great enough to impress miners and owners, bringing them together to devise ways and means for their mutual protection. That they have not had this effect is illustrated by the two quotations given. The lack has not been of - negotiation, only of effective results. The great strike of 1921, which lasted longer than the present one has yet run, was not precipitated without the parties meeting and trying to agree. They failed. The settlement came in circumstances such that it could not be permanent, for the miners were exhausted and had to make the best they could of an adverse situation. Again, in 1924, there were lengthy negotiations. They produced an agreement based, not on realities, but the temporary prosperity due to the Ruhr occupation. Last year months were spent in bargaining. At the end the disputants were as far apart as ever. It was only the promise of a subsidy which prevented a stoppage. The redemption of the promise cost the nation some £23,000,000, but it ga\ e no more than a truce, the temporary nature of which was speedily revealed when the term of the subsidy drew near to its end.

White the peace bought with the nation's money prevailed, the Coal Commission laboured to analyse conditions in the industry and devise a plan to cure its ills. After it had reported there was complaint that too little time was left in which to settle, the wages dispute before the critical date when the subsidy must cease. Yet the report was published in the second week of March, leaving a month and a-half in which to make mutual adjustments. It was not lack of time, but the'want of a spirit of

compromise which saw the gap between employers and employed wide and unbridged at April 30. The report insisted that before its plan to revive the industry could become effective there must be sacrifices, to which the miners' wages must contribute. The miners stood fast to their determination not to assent to any reduction "inasmuch as wages are already too low." The owners refused to offer a national minimum wage, but asked for reductions estimated at from one to five shillings a shift. These terms were immediately rejected. A later offer by the owners was a return to 1921 rates, with an eight-hours day. This was the stage reached when the strike began. There had been plenteous negotiation between March 31 and April 3U. The parties had not been left to themselves to fight the matter out. The Government had been straining every nerve to bring them together. The Prime Minister had been personally active in interviewing both sides. Still, the result was failure, deadlock, stoppage. Since the strike the Government tried several times to bring the parties to conference on a set plan. Again there was failure, until finally Mr. Baldwin issued hia ultimatum that they must themselves devise any new terms for discussion. In the light of this history, stretching back to 1921, and earlier, exhibiting continuity since then, it is selfevident that the mere disposition to negotiate now means little unless it is also accompanied by a disposition to compromise.