WHY DISFRANCHISE

New Zealand Times, Volume XXXVI, Issue 8190, 3 August 1912, Page 8

WHY DISFRANCHISE

Mr Begg,- of Southland, suggested at tho Farmers’ Union Conference that workers should be disfranchised for going on strike. He should, bo reminded, that the only group of workers in this country which advocates the strike os the usual weapon in industrial disputes are also given to sneering at the ballot. It would be something of a joke to disfranchise by law a group of men who were voluntarily disfranchising themselves.

It should be said, however, that for a small body of New Zealand workers, and those the ones most given to striking, disfranchisement has already been adopted on a voluntary basis of this eoft, —when one refuses to vote at all, ho may be said to disfranchise himself, but when be votes against himself he gives the authority of his vote to those jjuo are supporting policies contrary to his interest. That is a little worse than disfranchisement.

The very men who can be easily led to strike are also easily led to vote for the very things which . make the strike inevitable. Disfranchisement k no remedy—fines are no remedy—compulsion of every sort is no remedy. If tho Government is going to compel private enterprise to pay a certain wage, tho easiest way to compel it is for the Government itself to provide employment for all competent workers at tho minimum rate of wages it fixes, for private enterprises. Then the private enterprises will have to pay the wages, not by Act of Parliament, but because of the situation thus created. Then a worker could take his choice between tho minimum wage provided by tho State and the better remuneration piovided by private undertakings: it would not bo necessary to compel either the employer, or tho employee, to move along any required path. A public road, ooen to all, would make on end of the exploiters toll-gate.