THE OTAGO DAILY TIMES FRIDAY, January 8, 1937. AMERICAN LABOUR TROUBLES

Otago Daily Times, Issue 23083, 8 January 1937, Page 6

THE OTAGO DAILY TIMES FRIDAY, January 8, 1937. AMERICAN LABOUR TROUBLES

Industry in the United States is faced at the present time by two strikes of magnitude. One affecting the motor industry is in its early stages, while the other, affecting American shipping, has been in full swing for months. In the latter case the trouble originated, not for the first time, on the Pacific coast. In 1934 there was a sensational general strike at San Francisco, in which the maritime and other unions, securing a victory, obtained favourable agreements. These agreements expired at the end of September last, at a time when, it has been stated, the employers and shipowners were determined to fight against the renewal of them, and the workers were just as resolute that they should be renewed with additional concessions. The control of hiring halls, the pivot of the 1934 disagreement, has been again the focal point of the dispute. Thirty-seven thousand workers responded when a strike was called by the Maritime Federation of the Pacific under Mr Harry Bridges, and the trouble extended rapidly from the west coast to the Atlantic and Gulf,ports. The disorganisation which it has caused has been most extensive, making itself felt in the matter of mail and other communication even in this country, and the loss that has resulted in one direction and another has been inevitably immense. One early estimate was that 326 ships were tied up and that 50,000 maritime workers were idle. About three weeks ago it was reported that the San Francisco shipowners—the AmericanHawaiian, Dollar and Matson Lines being the principal ones affected—estimated the loss due to the Pacific coast strike at 350,000,000 dollars, a survey showing that there was a loss of 7,250,000 dollars each working day on the basis of 240 idle ships and 37,000 idle maritime workers. Moreover, thousands of employees had been rendered idle in rejated industries, and ten thousand were participants in "walkouts " not directly connected with the shipping strike. Although the end of this trouble was reported to be in sight more than a fortnight ago, an agreement applying to the Pacific coast having been completed and accepted by the leaders of the shipowners and strikers, and only awaiting formal ratification, there is as yet no definite announcement of a settlement. On behalf of the Maritime Federation, Mr Bridges declared that the west coast strike had been won, but he expected that the leaders would refuse to end it unless the demands of the Atlantic workers were also granted. Appeals for Federal intervention for the ending of the national hold-up of shipping do not appear to have been productive of much result beyond conferences between Mr Roosevelt and Miss Perkins, United States Secretary for Labour. Probably more of these will take place in view of the developments that have now occurred in the news in respect of General Motors. The president of that organisation is said to have issued a formal statement defying the United Automobile Workers of America and challenging the unions to "go ahead." About 40,000 employees were apparently on strike at the beginning of this week, and, should the strike extend to the 135,000 who, it is suggested, may be involved, it is estimated that the daily wage loss wculd amount to a million dollars. Prior to this particular episode, it was announced by Mr Henry Ford that he was putting off 10,000 men from his works at Detroit in consequence of a shortage of supplies caused by a "sit-down strike" in another establishment. Reports from Detroit suggest that there is evidence of an effort to organise an almost complete suspension of the automobile industry throughout the United States. It seems to be agreed that the vast majority of Mr Roosevelt's supporters at the recent Presidential election voted for " social security." "Meanwhile," observes a wellknown American review, "it must be clear to everyone that no social security programme can function efficiently unless and until our industrial structure is liberated from the disturbances constantly arising because of the disputes between capital and labour." Labour unrest, not always dissociated from returning prosperity, seems likely to be one of the most serious problems confronting the Roosevelt Administration during the present year.

PREVENTION OF PROFITEERING The Minister of Industries and Commerce has produced a formidable list of commodities and services in respect of which complaints have been made to him that breaches of the Prevention of Profiteering Act have been committed. There have, however, been no prosecutions under the Act. The legislation which the Minister introduced with the object of preventing undue exploitation of the public seems likely to partake of the nature of a brutum fulmen. It was always to be anticipated that it would be so. An advance in the price of a commodity or of a service does not necessarily imply the practice of profiteering. If it did, the Minister might himself be exposed to a charge of profiteering in the case of the price of bread. The passage of the Prevention of Profiteering Act represented, indeed, a mere gesture on the part of the Government towards those

of its supporters who were perturbed by the rising prices of goods that were required by them for their own use. There was at no time any possible escape from the conclusion that the policy which has been pursued by the Government must necessarily be reflected in increased charges that would fall upon the people of the country. An advance in wages and a reduction in hours involve an increase in costs for which persons engaged in industry of every kind must, if they are to retain their solvency, recoup themselves by raising the prices of their goods or services. There are many businesses producing goods the prices of which are affected by increased costs of more than one operation, and there is none that has been free from the need of meeting some addition to the costs that previously entered into the price of the commodities sold or the services rendered by it. The Minister stated, in moving the second reading of the Bill for the prevention of profiteering, that " if a man thinks that, as a result of increased costs, his selling price must be raised, and if it is clear that he cannot get reasonable compensation from an increased turnover he has the right to cover his costs by increased prices, and he will only come into conflict with the law at the point where he is unfair to his fellow-citizens." It is clear from the statement now made by the Minister on the subject that there has been a general absence of the unfairness which the legislation purported to prohibit. The element of competition is in itself powerful enough to prevent any undue increase in the price of goods over the disposal of which the Government exercises no control.