The New Zealand Times. TUESDAY, MAY 10, 1921. INDUSTRIAL TURMOIL

New Zealand Times, Volume XLVII, Issue 10896, 10 May 1921, Page 4

The New Zealand Times. TUESDAY, MAY 10, 1921. INDUSTRIAL TURMOIL

“Turmoil, more turmoil, and still more turmoil,” represents fairly the industrial situation in Britain. Everyone is asking, with bated breath, what is going to happen ? Will chaos subside, or will the confusion become worse confounded ? That is the question of the hour. Many who ask it confess to a dread of revolutionaries carefully stirring the mass boiling in the industrial pit. To them the .cry of the alarmed Henderson, Labour leader of fame or notoriety, os he is indicated from one side or the other, rising out of the pit to accuse the Prime Minister of describing the issue in dispute as political, confirms their worst fears. Just now, however, black as the situation is, and however strong the probability of its becoming blacker, there is not enough information to guide judgment. For the present, we can- only look on in shocked amazement. So doing, we can realise that the worst sign is the persistence of the attempts at “'sabotage” ; byorganised, fierce attempts to destroy the mines by stopping the pumping and smashing the pumping machinery. This persistence is not a sign, of industrialism. Men with both eyes on their industry never want to destroy tho means of industry by which they live; while men who deliberately aim at the destruction of the means of industry have no defence against the charge of ulterior motives which leave industrial affairs out of the count absolutely. This persistence of sabotage is, we repeat, the worst sign of the situation—and must take its place on the political side. On the human side the worst sign is the extent of the unemployment. Fifteen million

people are directly affected; strike funds are nearly all exhausted; and the rest of the population is wondering how tho commerce and industry of the country will be able to survive the shocks of this weird time.

On their side, the coal-miners are firm. “Fight” is their war cry and “No surrender” their motto. On these the fifteen millions of unemployment are a grim and gigantic commentary. The commentary, at all events, shows at whose expense the great leaders of Labour maintain this quite undeserved reputation for greatness. How they are now carrying on the struggle of their “Fight” and “No surrender” policy, based on the weakest and most helpless sections of the community, may be judged from the events as they are chronicled in the cable messages. Their first move, which was tp have been a supporting advance into the fight by the Triple Alliance, failed because the rank and file of the transport forces refused pointblank to obey the orders of their ill-advised chiefs. Refusing the consequential offer of further negotiation these miner chiefs showed their preference for force by urging the units of the transport line to join them. It was an attempt to break up in detail the resistance of the transporters. It has met with some amount of success, for foreign coal is declared ““black” by some of these units, and Welsh coal by others. Why the former is easily understood, because it is considerably cheaper, and here we have a subsidiary sign in support of the sign of the persistent sabotage. The reason for the second ‘“black” declaration, it is impossible, with. the information at our disposal, to surmise, unless it be a sign that weakness is creeping in somewhere on the side of direct .action. Another success of that si dp is shown by the attitude of the unions of marine cooks and stewards. That repre-

sents a partial success on the sea-side of transport. There the direct aotioners have the seamen against themj for these . have accepted the reduction—really a war bonus reduction, and, therefore, very ' sensibly accepted by the men—and, therefore, the submission of the cooks and stewards, looks like a minor success for the direct actioners. Nevertheless, as a paralysing move, it may, if the cooks and stewards persist, prove very irksome indeed. The paralysis of shipping, with the paralysis of docking—the refusal to haridle the cheaper foreign coal now arriving in large quantities as a move in the counter-policy of the Government—is the operation of the industrial battle now being decided. Whether the attempt of the direct actioners to recover, by appealing to the transport units, the advantage lost by the defection of the main body, will be successful remains to be 6een,

Over this struggle—in what many regard in their alarm as the pit of industrial chaos, and with some show of right—Mr Lloyd George throws the light of reason. He contends that the question has 'gone beyond wages. It is really a question of economics, of economic facts, which must be taken into account. It is a fact, he says, that coal is now produced more cheaply by the competitors of the British producer, who before the war was supreme. During (the war the British Government paid for the coaJ whatever was necessary, ' because the co(al was! indispensable. After the, war cheaper production came into competition, and for a time the system established in Britain tried to meet this competition. During a recent period of a few months this subsidy reached twenty-five millions, and it has become evident that it is useless to go on paying' it. Therefore, the subsidy must stop. Mr Henderson replies that this is political talk, presumably because the question of nationalisation of the mines is in the forefront of discussion, .is raised as a support to the gospel of cheaper production. Mr Henderson, therefore, demands a temporary payment of subsidies. Biit as he makes no suggestion of any plan for reducing the cost of production— -a thing which is done now elsewhere—without reduction of wages to anything like pre-war levelg his attitude is no better than Micawberism. Thus,, while the brute forces fight in the pit, the forces of intellect above the pit look very much like a fight between economic ■ reason and Micawberism. , The situation is not hopeful. British commercial supremacy is threatened by tho developments of the world’s production . of coal, in which tbo terms of the Versailles Treaty are a factor. If there is nothing but Micawberism to help British coal, which is badly placed in this new development, nothing can be worse than the present outlook. But the more pressing question is the end of the fight with Direct Action. Until that ends——well, there can be no proper study of the economic question. That is the real stress of the conflict now raging.