INDUSTRIAL WORLD.

Otago Daily Times, Issue 18447, 7 January 1922, Page 12

INDUSTRIAL WORLD.

\ FBWS A kD STOTES. Bt J. T. Paul. SHAW’S SOCIALISM. laj the hands of Mr George Bernard Shaw .Socialism is presented as the liveliest topic .and I the most ropellant ideal with which our ago:,ia concerned. Hia expositions of Sooial,ist_ politics always remind mo (writes the editor of the British Labour Leader) of the stony which Tubal poured into Shylock’s ear about Jessica’s jewels and Antonio’s ships. It was pleasant for the old Jew to jhear of the merchant’s failure at eea; but.; when ho began to get too elated by that narrative Tubal switched it off and reminded him of how much his daughter had spent in a single night at Genoa. That steadied him. _ Mr Shaw ,is the Tubal of Socialism. It .is encouraging to bo told ,that in G. B. S.’s economic millennium everybody will got the same wages. -But enthusiasm is dashed when Mr Shaw, noting our too premature smile of satisfaction', proceeds to inform ns that under his work will bo compulsorily enforced by.Sthe State, and that if we dodge it we shall be killed. And the worst of it is he (always telle ns this part of the story as though ho enjoyed it far more than anything else in the whole business. COMPULSORY WORK; Mr Shaw has raised the ire of certain English Labour leaders by “preaching the gloomy gospel of compulsory work under parn of death,” in the current Labour Monthly. And he does it with all his old savage joy at putting the fear of the State in us. He is writing on “The Dictatorship °f. the Proletariat,” and he succeeds in administering a dynamic shock to our comfortable prejudices in nearly every sentence. He sees no hope for our shoddy civilisation until the glorification of idleness has been rooted Out of every mother’s son of us, and we come “to feel a far .dgepor horror of a social parasite than anyone can now pretend to feel for thS outcasts of the capitalist Tfrer© b© no sferikos under Shavian Socialism, for if any Trade Union attempted such a thing the State would put the old capitalist law against trade unions as conspiracies "ruthlessly into execution.” One can only pause a fraction of a second (says a critic) to surmise how such a piece of scaffolding as a trade union could be allowed (or would desire) to exist in a finished Socialist State, before one is whirled on to a consideration of the coal strike, and the “difficult position” in which the Government would nave been put if the Labour leaders baa only had■ the foresight to challenge it to “stop the ; strike by introducing compulsory seirvjcoJ’

LABOUR DST THE UNITED STATES.' , Perhaps (remarks am exchange) the greatest menace to the freedom of the workers , America is the Steel Trust. "Every marker,’' says a recent investigator, “ja ■ dismissed who is known to belong to a trade union. 1 ' . An axtido in the American Labour Legislataoti Review throws a lurid light on the antifcmon methods of the steel kings. The author. Professor John A. Ryan, shows how wie steel concerns, while contendmg‘for freedom of ossoca^tion.'for them- ;, selves, deny the right of , the workers to combine for any industrial purpose what/ •very , , Profeeaor Ryan observes: “These induetnalj autocrats profess to ho in favour of an opon shop, to give to the man -who does not heioiLg to the union oppartanity to work when anti where he pleases. They refuse to f deal; with the union in any sense. More than.' that __ in the steel industry there is , an association one af wfcoee functions is to ■ v see .that only non-union foremen are employed; that the non-union foremen, as far as possible, do not employ .any union men. In Other words,. their open shop, means a closqd shop agaimat the union.” Professor Ryan adds the following quota- - tion-;from the Tall Street Journal .-—‘‘When the -real readjustment comes the tins killed worker finishes where he belongs—at the bottom of the list. He will be able to live ‘on 8s 4d a day when he is lucky enoilgh to get that amount regularly. The cost- of living will adjust itself. The Labour Bureau will give up publishing nonsense about £520 a year minimum for a fancied ‘family of five.’ The unskilled , worker will thank goodness he has no " family of five, or, indeed, anybody but himself ito ..support; nor will any employer pay .h,ira on the basis of such fatherhood, as ithe-.bankrupt and discredited Interchuroh Wbrld Movement absurdly proposed in its into the steel strike.” vQ| ' AND UNIONISM. . Tfhe American meat packers, Messrs Armour and 00., Swift and Cb., Wilson and ' Coi,*- and Oudahy Packing Co., refused to , deal with'the union representatives of 76,000 workers, and declared what is called the “often shop,” This declaration was made, says the New York. Call, on the day of the expiration of the agreement between packers and union employees made during the war under the arbitration of Judge AJschuler. Officials of the Amalgamated Meat Cutters anq Butchpr Workers willed on the, packers ; day and asked for a continuance for another year of the steles provided ip the Alafchular-award. *At the Armour and Swift plaints they. were told that' the firms would deal only 'with their own employees in ■ future. The firms have announced a IS par cent, cut in wages. The packers claim that 90 per cent, of their 75,000’ employees voted in favour of the/“American shop representation plan” in operation in their concerns, which their counsel has outlined as follows: ‘All men and women are eligible to amployment,«r- vphether members of outside unions or not. , ‘JNo person may represent employees in adjustment 11 of grievances who is not an. emjJloy.ee pi the company. “The 1 'employees elect their own representatives by ballot. These representatives must be American citizens. Employees ■ elected->aß. representatives• treat with execu- - tives.qf the companies in the matters of wage'abates and worldng conditions. “I(S is not strictly correct to say that we have-; delated for the ‘open'- shop,’ said the .boppse! for the four firms, because we havtendyer had the closed shop. But, owing to t£je Alschuler agreement, a purely wartime.: emergency act, into which we entered with' ; the International Butchers’ Association Unicoi, we have continued under its provisions! as regards wages and working rules. “To-day that agreement expired, and we the union officials that in the future wo will deal with our own employees only,/ If union business agents want to talk "business with the packers they can • comet out and get a job, and proceed on ; the basis of being an employee.” i i , JOTTINGS. If LaltoUt. would at long last realise (says Mr ti. jXI Ore Bitohie) that it could not withmit suicide go on abstracting remuneration coyond the capacity of its industry to pay, -t if it would repudiate oa.’ canny methods, and give in regular 'and cohtinuoua *sork adequate value for its remuneration, | the» :f would quickly, at least oom'bihedf with a national trade policy, put homo; industries on a sound basis and recover/ the export trade in coal and other 1 commodities. ‘‘Doctors aro in possession of knowledge and training that could save industry over £100,1)00,000 a year,” writes Dr Edgar L. Collis in a late issue of the Journal of Industrial Welfare. “It has been proved that tt rocpictionMn labour turnover alone worth £70,<4)0,000 annually can bo saved by medical Supervision and hygenio conditions. In these} day blithe healthy person requiree the eorvidfes of the physician 00 ■ muon as one who is ill, t and adequate provision is necessary ;in order to prevent the industrial worker from being ill.” There is no lack in any sphere of life > 'of dfetrubfive criticism (says the World’s Wor®. It ia desperately easy for those entrust® with no responsibilities to otherand belittle the aohiovo- . mente of even the meet conscientious plenipotentiaries. It is doubtful if progress in .public affaire would ever be possible if negotiations between governments at- all , timeid lanct-between delegates at every conferorioqjlyilfefe of 1 necessity exposed to the Bearchught of irresponsible criticism and the ■ ’venom of inimical marplots. Spfcakjng of Government departments > (writSs "Mr Tom Shaw, Labour M.P. in the ' London Clarion) brings me naturally to ’ what’ I ..dqnaider to be one of the weakest ‘ points in ..tho Labour Party’s work Until /iws reffilP-that administration is of enormous < importance. we are not likely to reach suoccssJ lactils will not realise themselves. What would bo the use, for example, of natioraltein® the land unless it could be - maamgedjoimd admimstered to 1 the -beet , (J Will it be if Government dei‘parffieoi,»niain as they are ? I am afraid ;•/not.; developing .too -many”'men' making fine- speeches on general lineaj and .too few who know how to do . tilings. : f .' ' ' ' " ■*'