Truth COAL AND THE COMMUNITY

NZ Truth, Issue 685, 3 August 1918, Page 4

Truth

COAL AND THE COMMUNITY

THE PEOPLE'S PAPER.

NEW ZEALAND HEAD OFFICE— ' Wellington: Manners-street PROVINCIAL REPRESENTATIVES— Auckland: 3 Custom-street East . Christchurch: 102 Gloucester- street Dunedin; Communications Box 591, P.O.

SATURDAY, AUGUST 3, 1918

The One Way Out The trouble between the miners and the mme -owners is still unsettled. Things have advanced a further stage by the coal-masters making a detailed reply to the claims and complaints put forward by the miners' spokesmen. It is now the miners' turn to move, but how they .ara to do so through the barrage the employers' advocates have put up, with any hope of winning out of the unfavorable position m which they hftvs plaood themselves, not to speak of gaining further concessions from the coal combine, is difficult to determine. There is not the slightest doubt, and nothing- is to be gained by denying it, that, so far, the employers' -side has shown the best generalship. It appears that the miners have yet to learn that neither denunciation nor abuse is argument, or carries weig"ht with thoughtful people. While the mine-owners may be all the evil things said about them, and ntore, as the children's rhyme has it, "names never hurt," whereas, as the poet says, "Facts are chiels that.winna, ding, an' downa be disputed," 'even the best friends of the miners feel constrained to admit that such facts as we have, seem on the side of "the employers. Indeed, the "Evening Post" of Wellington declares that this not only seems so, but is. The Willis-street organ of Fat says that up to the present all the best of the argument lies with the coal companies. But the "Post" conveniently forgets that the "best" of the argument does not of neecessity mean the "right" side of the question. In our law courts men who are good "argufyers" secure high retainers and fat fees, because of their ability to make the worse appear the better cause, and all m the way of business. All, therefore, that can be claimed m the case under discussion is that the longer purse has been able to secure the better advocates, and .that the men briefed on behalf of the miner workers, despite their greater practical knowledge of the industry, have not the necessary ability, or other means capable of combating effectively the contentions of men skilled m industrial polemics on behalf of Plute. This state of affairs may be due to the personal limitations of Labor's chosen leaders; to some hidden handicap not apparent to the rank and file of the workers generally, though more than guessed at by the employers, or simply because Labor's champions, by the .better generalship of the other side, have been manoeuvred into arguing from a false premise. "Truth" has reason to believe that the unfortunate position of the miners In the controversy is due to something of all three, and is convinced, therefore, that it is impossible for any body of men, so handicapped, to present a good case, be their cause never so just, and the need never so great. • • * . * It is not this journal's duty at the present stage of the game to point out the limitations of the chosen leaders of Labor m the wordy warfare now being indulged m as a preliminary to what may become a most bitter struggle. Indeed, these are so apparent to most observant people as to need no emphasising from us. Mr, Robert Semple is quite a different man m conference with the employers to what he appears on the propagandist platform. We do not say this disparagingly, but rather as a compliment. It Is admitted by men on both sides who have been present with him m such gatherings that Mr. Semple, while a fearless and able advocate, and the loyal servant of his side, is nevertheless possessed of considerable sagacity and is careful never to seek to place the last straw on the camel's back. Unfortunately, those associated with him have not always acted as wisely, and m the present dispute this is so palpable as to be painful to refer to. Of the second cause of weakness, we need not now say much. It must be obvious to the workers on our minefields, themselves, that unless they are ready to throw selfishness utterly overboard, and all sections stand or fall together, there is little hope of permanent progress. An injury to one must be recognised as an injury to all. This Is the chart by which their course should ever be steered if they are to arrive at the desired haven of industrial ownership m time. Yet it is the very one the miners, notwithstanding much mouthing of the motto, have, failed to, fully appreciate. The difference shown m the earnings of the day's wage men when compared with the wages" admittedly won by the coal-getters, is a very serious one, arid that difference is a damning indictment of the coalhewers' claim to be the pioneers of industrial brotherhood. There is not the slightest doubt that compared witn these workers, and also with many proletarian plugs m our cities, the coalhewers are doing' pretty well, thank you. Prior tc the publication of the mine-owners' statement, "Truth" had received independent testimony that many coal-getters, not a few of them officials m miners' unions, were earning as high as £15 to £20 per fortnight. Indeed, it is stated that a prominent official of the Federation said that he could not conscientiously seek an increase for the hewers, but that the day's wage men undoubtedly deserved better treatment, and he thought that the principal demand ought to be made on behalf of these men. There is a lot to be said for this attitude, and it is to^ be hoped that the section of the Miners' Federation executive representing these men will press for an evening-up of the wages of all the workers on our minefields. With this consummated there will be a surer hope of solidarity when the next serious fight takes place. * * . * We now come to the third weakness to which we referred as handicapping the men's advocates m the argumentative warfare now proceeding, i.e., arguing from a wrong premise. It is absurd for a plute press pen-pusher to think that all he has got to do to • be m a position to judge the right and the wrong of the present dispute is to read the .statements issued by each side respectively. That way leads to qonfusion worse confounded. One has first to see that the premise upon which the argument is based is tht correct one. If the premise is wrong, how is it possible to arrive at a correct solution of the difficulty? In the case under discussion, the premise is undoubtedly erroneous. The miners' advocates have been tricked into defending the miners' claim to a living wage, and so all that the "spruikers" for plute have to do is to prove that on present values the miners are receiving a living wage, when compared, say, with the wage upon which the day's wage men at the mines have to live. On. that premise the employers have proved their case, but the premise is viciously false and horribly unjust. The worker, miner or other, is entitled to the value which is the result of his labor. It is not a question of whether the men are receiving a living wage, or whether or not the employers are pocketing excessive profits. By means of watered stock and other tricks of the trade, the employers can always show that their profits are at, zero. Then again, m the case of the worker, it is a question as to what the wage-earner should be satisfied with as his standard of liv-

ing-, the profit-pinchers debasing it, while, naturally, the wage-workera seek to inflate it. Thus no "fair" and lasting agreement can be arrived at. The only true basis is the value which the labor applied has added to tho cqmmodity produced. This takes no cognisance of living wages or divldends, and rightly so, and fixes a standard against which there can bo no appeal, because no appeal is required. « • # "Truth" submits that judged, by this standard not one of the workers on our coalfields is receiving :i wage commensurate with the' labor demanded and supplied. On the other hand, the consumers are being compelled to pay an exorbitant price for* their coal supplies. Between the producers and the consumers there is a predatory gang of profiteers who not only render no useful service to the State, but are the real and lasting cause of industrial strife. In the present case the mine-owners are eminently so, because the commodity, which by their cupidity, and because of the stupidity of the powers that be, they have used all their cunning to corner and control, is a national asset and a public necessity. In the bringing of. this or any other public necessity within reach ol! the consumer, there need be no intervention of any other than the indispe'nsible laborer. At the present time, j when national and individual economy and Efficiency are being inculcated on all sides, there is less need for the existence m this of all industries of the mere profit-taker. While the mineowners and miners are wrangling the community is being fleeced unmercifully. Surely the Government is conscious of how it ought to act to act justly and wisely. Will it have the courage to do so?