THE STRIKE RECORD

Otago Daily Times, Issue 25796, 17 March 1945, Page 6

THE STRIKE RECORD

A caucus of members of the Parliamentary Labour Party was held in Wellington on March 2, atwhich, a carding to report, the Prime Minister gave a full account of recent industrial troubles and of “ the steps taken to assert the authority of the Government in preventing dislocation of the supply of food and other commodities essential to the war effort.” It is also on record that the caucus passed a unanimous vote of thanks to the Prime Minister and the Government “ for their capable, firm and at the same time fair and conciliatory handling” of the disputes that had occurred. We have no quarrel with the use of the word “conciliatory” in the text of the motion; the rest is apocryphal. Possibly there was an omission on the part of the Prime Minister to refer members of the caucus to the analysis of industrial disputes in 1944, contained in the January number of the Abstract of Statistics. Possibly members do not read the newspapers, and so could not be expected to have any idea of the extent to which the shameful record of last year is threatening to extend itself this year. The official Abstract is our authority for setting out that industrial disputes during 1944 were on a much greater scale than they had been for some years past. Compared with 1943, the number of disputes increased by 80—from 69 to 149; the number of workers who were involved increased by 18,851

from 10,915 to 29,766; the number of firms affected by 149 —from 114 to 263; the number of working days lost by 37,915—fr0m 14,637 to 52,602; and the estimated loss in wages by £53,778—fr0m £20,179 to £73,957. Statistical information is, of course, not available for the first two and a-half months of 1945, but our own files covering that period show how the discreditable record of industrial lawlessness is continuing. Apart from the strike of railway workers, which was widespread, disruptive and costly in its effects, there has already been refusal or partial refusal to work by fertiliser employees, timber workers, watersiders, coal miners, freezing workers, fruit factory workers, bakers, tunnel workers, dairy factory workers, shipyard workers, and, latest of all, ! retort-house employees in the Auckland Gas Works. The unenviable distinction of these latter is that they object to the drafting of two gradeone men from their midst to the army as part of the replacement scheme designed to ensure leave for men who have already been on active service for more than three years. In every case, last year as this, the law has been brought into contempt; in every case it is obvious that the public convenience must have suffered; in almost every case the demands of national crisis, with the war effort of the Allies mounting to its peak, have been disregarded. Will the Prime Minister be persuaded to speak as plainly to the public as he would like it to be inferred that he spoke to the Labour caucus on “ the steps taken to assert the authority of the Government ” for the “ prevention ” of these industrial disorders? Will he indicate where, in what circumstances and with what effect the processes of law—the law of the Government’s own drafting—have been set in motion against the law-breakers? Will he say to what extent the “ co-operation of the Federation of Labour and of the unions concerned,” given, as he says, to the Government, has been effective “ in combating industrial indiscipline and disruption ”? Will any spokesman of the caucus indicate the grounds on which it thought fit to congratulate the Government for its “ capable, firm and at the same time fair and conciliatory handling of recent industrial troubles ”? And will he at the same time explain what value is to be attached to the assurance of support given by the caucus to the Government in its determination “to use all the necessary resources of the State to prevent disastrous interference with the war effort and generally in the interests of all the people ”? Neither the public interest nor the obligation of loyalty to the Government and the men and women of the armed forces is considered at all by the revolutionary elements that exist in the ranks of industrial labour. Theirs is a selfishness bred in defiance and fed on the weakness of those whom they elected to govern the country.