THE COASTAL OFFICERS

New Zealand Times, Volume XXXIII, Issue 7928, 11 October 1911, Page 6

THE COASTAL OFFICERS

In a letter appearing in another column Mr T. \V. Spence, apparently acting on behalf of the Merchant Service Guild, replies to our article ,on the coastal officers’ dispute. Briefly, our contentions, expressed yesterday, are (1) That the cessation of work by members of the guild amounts in its nature and consequences to what is commonly known as a strike; (2) that while apy workers’ union may choose between compulsory arbitration and freedom of contract it cannot have both without violating the spirit of the Arbitration Act and the first principles of justice; and (3) that if the Merchant Service Guild is now acting within its legal rights, the position constitutes a scandal and calls for close examination. Putting aside as absurd Mr Spence’s suggestion that onr comments were inspired by a servant of the Employers’ Association, our correspondent’s reply may be summarised in this way:—That there is no strike, the officers’ “termination of agreement” being legal; that the cessation of work is justified by the unfair conditions of the award of

tho Arbitration Court; that our assertion that the guild took the shipowners to the court places the guild “in a false light” because tho dispute was not settled by tho conciliation council; and that the President of tho Court is biased and his colleagues are incompetent. Incidentally, Mr Spence describes as “claptrap” our view that it is improper to reject an award after asking for it, and charges us with pro-' senting sophistical arguments to “bolster up tho employers’ case.” We take leave to say that 3lr Spence’s reply leaves our view of the situation unshaken. Whether in tho strict interpretation of tho Act tho officers are now on strike or have properly “terminated their agreement” is not for us to decide. Wo are satisfied that tho whole community of Wellington—indeed, pf the Dominion—associates in its mind the general conditions of a strike with the position that exists today, and regards any other view as trickery with words. The “Standard Dictionary” defines a strike in these words: “To cease work as a means of enforcing a demand, of uttering a protest, or of securing the redress of some grievance; as, to strike for higher wages.” This, it seems to us, is precisely what the members of the Merchant Service Guild have done. They have ceased work to endeavour to enforce certain te_rms on tho shipowners, and their action has paralysed the business of a considerable fleet ‘ and. wantonly thrown the crews, who hare no part in the dispute, out of employment. We have never urged that striking is indefensible or illegitimate. The strike is a perfectly fair weapon to use under fair circumstances. It is certainly harsh to tho point of cruelty, since tho number of sufferers far exceeds that of the disputants. It is frequently unsuccessful, and always clumsy. So is a lock-out—just such a lock-out as would have occurred, and would have been so described in unmeasured terms, if the shipowners, instead of tho workers, had in this case repudiated the award of the court. If the employers, instead of the employees, had rejected the findings of the court, tied up their steamers and dismissed the crews, no language at the disposal of Mr Spence would have been strong enough to express his indignation. It, at the same time, the owners had claimed that they were not causing a lock-out, but merely “giving their ships a holiday,” they would have- been roundly condemned from end to end of the Dominion, and the Merchant Service Guild ‘ would have exhausted all the resources of tho law to make the owners yield to decision of the Court.

To say that in pointing out the grave consequences threatened .by this behaviour of tho Merchant Service Guild we are indulging in sophistry to.hols tor up ■ the employers’ case is to make an assertion • contrary to the truth. If we had to express an opinion about tho employers it would he something less than complimentary. Mr Spence very properly says that no law can force a man to work under conditions which he considers unjust and unbearable. Wo entirely agree with this. Where we differ from our correspondent is in considering it “decent” to want to hold the employers to compulsory arbitration and at tho same time allow employees freedom to accept tho court’s decisions or make an organised attempt to paralyse trade justi as it pleases them. We said yesterday, and say again, that this should not be allowed. As to the alleged bias of the President of the Court , and incompetence of the other members “to form a 'correct opinion on maritime concerns,” does it not seem a little late in the day for the Merchant Service Guild to discover these shortcomings?. The guild, not tho shipowners, resolved to go. to the court. The award may be a good or a bad one, but, notwithstanding all that Mr Spence has to say, the fact remains that if was sought and obtained by the employees.