THE SEAMEN'S DISPUTE.

Otago Daily Times, Issue 13519, 16 February 1906, Page 4

THE SEAMEN'S DISPUTE.

The Federated Seamen's Union exhibits a gi'eat deal of bitterness over the award of the Arbitration Court, upon the reference to it for the settlement of the wages and conditions of employment of the seamen engaged in the shipping trade of the colony. It expresses its astonishment at the terms of the award, it stigmatises the decision as unjust,—which view the Trades and Labour Council of Otago, probably upon the representations from interested quarters, has been rash enough to endorse—and it practically declares the Court to he unworthy .of confidence. The community is always prepared to make a certain amount of allowance (or the disappointment of a litigant who has been worsted; but it is apt to withhold its sympathy from one who threatens that, because lie lus failed ill his object, he will resort to violence whenever the opportunity presents itself; and the resolution adopted by the. Union last night is so clearly tantamount to a declaration that, undeterred by its sorrowful experience of the, past, it will seek in future to gain its ends by methods which the public had regarded as finally forsaken in New Zealand that it will, we believe, be generally condemned. The justification for the award which the Court has delivered is contained in the statement of reasons .accompanying the award. In the main, as the Court- says, the award repeat!; the provisions of the previous .Ward. In the course of an extremely exhaustive inquiry, at which the arguments of the contending parties were so forcibly and so ably stated as to elicit compliments from the Court, the representatives of the Seamen's Union strenuously contended that. the char- ' acter of the service and the circum- J stances of the owners warranted an j increase in the rate of wages. Apart , from the demand that preference of i employment should be granted to mem- ' bers of the. Federated Seamen's Union, ' the question of wages was the chief point J in issue in the disputp. A great deal r of stress was laid, in support of the f seamen's claim, upon the prosperous t condition of the Union Steam Ship Com- * pany. But though, as is fortunately ' the ease, the Union Company is enjoying c the fruits of the general prosperity of J' the colony, the Court would scarcelj 0 have been justified in regarding that r circumstance as a ground for a general t increase in seamen's wages. The x Labour member of the Court, who was ' in a minority upon this and other * points of the decision, from which, .therefore, he dissented, contrasts the r , wages that are paid to seamen 'with li

t!io\ received by labourers on shore, and-, Vjiplmffises the insignificance of the indivit| n ] increase that was sought. These fyisiderations lend him to think that nr. advance of 10s per month should, !> clninietl by the Union, have been graced. It is undeniable that the sailor's, occupation is frequently of a trying at] even hazardous nature. Manifestly, Wevor, it has its compensations, fo tliei'c is rarely any lack of upplieants ft service on tlie steamers employed oil tk. coasts of the colony. Moreover, tliouj, ;m increase of 10s per month woulc, nienn an increase of only fourpence a VJny in the seaman's wage, it must not \> overlooked that it would also mean on increase of 14 per cent, upon the of able seamen. Now it is by no incai? certain that all the ship-owners are <t| lla lly with the Union Company in a fositioii to bear the burden of an additioi.to their wages bill of 10s per month fc<; each of the ."eamen and firemen they e«p]oy. It is, in fact, practically certain tliey are not. Even in the case of the Union Company, indeed, it is cleir that an. increase of wages such as the Seamen's Union desired would not liavt been by any means an immaterial circumstance". It is impassible, in fact, to belie-. e tliot, if the Court Iml docrend tint, this increase should be granted, the'.company would not have felt oblige! to recoup itself to some extent through its revenue from fares and freights. r %e Court, however, is guided by a somd principle in determining the rates' (f wages that shall be paid in an industry. It does not settle the wages on a profitsharing basis,, as that might in many industries involve (lie necessity of fixing a differential rate as between employers, and would certainly lead to confusion. It considers, as it must consider, the circumstances under which the industry generally is conducted, and it is after carefully taking all these into account that it arrives at what it believes to be an equitable conclusion. The minority of the Court expressed his dissent from the decision that the award should contain merely the usual clause providing that no discrimination should be shown against unionists in the employment of crews, and did so on the ground that over 95 per cent, of the men employed actually are unionists. To many people it will occur that the preference the unionists already get is so substantial that their organisation might reasonably rest contented. It makes it sufficiently evident, at all events, that the ship-owners have no objection to the employment of unionists qua unionists. Other objections that r.re by no moans devoid of weight were urged during the inquiry against the introduction of a preference clause. Among them wsjs one which will probably appeal with a good deal of force to the public. The Seamen's Union comprises men of all nationalities. It is the aim of the Union Steam Ship Company, however, to give preference of employment to British seamen. That aim' might be defeated if it were required to give preference to unionists. It may be retorted that this objection would not apply if all British seamen were unionists. That is so, no doubt, but it is no part of the business of the Arbitration Court to enjoin compulsory unionism.