PATER'S CHATS WITH THE BOYS.

Otago Witness, Issue 2006, 4 August 1892, Page 40

PATER'S CHATS WITH THE BOYS.

The Strike at Broken Hill.

I have refrained from writing on this subject because I was not able to get what I thought a fair statement from both sides, but having now got what I think sufficient information to judge, I'll let you know what I think of it. A< you kaow, I am not in favour of strikes, but there are times when a strike is a working man's legitimate defence. His labour is his capital, and he has a perfect right to withhold it just as a capitalist has a perfect right to withhold his capital or to trausfer it from one industry to another. In this caie, all things considered, my sympathies aie with the miners. At the outset the directors made a great mistake in not submitting the question of contract work in the drives to arbiirators as provided for, by the agreement made between the delegates representing 6000 miners and the reprctentatives of the companies. No amount of fophistry will get rid of the fact that the companies were morally bound to put all disputes to arbitration, and to take advantage of technicalities i 3 mean in the extreme. Jf the miners had taken advantage of quibbles there would certainly have been a howl raised by the directorates.

WHY THE MINERS STRUCK,

In face of tbe agreement the duectnrates simply gave notice that they intended to terminate their agreement with the miners on a certain day, and followed this up by putting all men possible to timbering up the mines, so that a strike woulc do as little harm to the workings as possible. The miners saw this, and as there are "creeps" occurring which require special timbering and close watching, they legitimately refused to strengthen the capitalists' position against themselves and came oub. No doubt, too, they had got an inkling that freedom of contract in addition to contract work would soon be insisted on, and they naturally got alarmed at the number of new hands being taken on and of old bands being sacked.

Now, I am in favour of freedom of contract providing a fair wage always accompanies it, but unfortunately it doesn't, and unionism is here beneficial to the v/orking man, for it insists on fair remuneration, and where tho unionists are moderate in their demand?, and do their best to assist jihose not so well off as themselves, they have a right to protect themselves. In this cas-e we know that freedom of contract means contract labour, and that means pitting men against one another to compete for the privilege of workicg eight hours in poisonous bad slopes. Now capitalists have formed immense rings to prevent competition within themselves — the blood-dyed Carnegie steel ring for instance — and to crush competition from without, and the miners in this instance are simply using a corresponding weapon. They are getting at present 10<3 a day in a climate where the daily existence is made up of eight hours in unhealthy underground, and often dangerous workings, eight hours grilling in a but, and eight hours in a dusty atmosphere. I was brought up in a mining city, and know a little about the work ; and I know that contract work underground takes more energy out of a man than a fair day's work ought to, without increasing his wages, and causes more danger to life and limb. I do not, then, believe in the competition among miners for the light to earn a wage that, in tho order .of things, will, without veiy strong pafeguards indeed, be reduced to less than an average man ought to get for an average day's work underground. WHY TIIE COMPANIES WISH TO INTRODUCE

FREE LABOUR.

One of the main confederation?, but not an expressed onp, is the fact thab dividends are likely not to be so large in consequence of the large amount of timbeiing required owing to the existence of creeps. The reasons expressed are

(a) The men do not do a fair day's work for a fair day's pay.

(6) Thab bwo men by the Miners' Regulations have to work at a face where often enough there is only room for one.

(c) That shifts are changed at the bhaf t and not at the face, causing of course considerable loss of time.

The first (a) is a fair complaint, and if true the miners are nob deserving of sympathy, but the remedy is to sack lazy men and not make all suffer for the shortcomings of a. few. My experience of miners in Ausbralia, is a very large one, and I find that as manly, as generous, and as hard-working men they are hard to beat. This is the first time I have heard miners in the mass characterised as lazy. The second (i) may seem at first sight a fair grievance also. Often enough, however, ground is - treacherous, and in any case, to be alono underground in a drive where perhaps one cannot stand upright, and has therefore to use bho pick in a kneeling or lying position, is by no means exhilarating. How many of us would care to work in the same portion unless well paid ? Ought we to be expected to ? But there is another aspect of the question. The ground these nvnes cover was purchased for mining purposes for a few pounds, Companies were floated, shares ih&ued, the shares frequently and heavily watered, and yet the watered shares give in some instances from 300 to nearly 1000 per cent, on their cost. The men — in most instances rich through cunning and gambling — making immense fortunes out of the mines are pure speculators, and, if speculators require the work of men under such unfavourable conditions as exist at Broken Hill, they should not grudge them the safety to life and the great benefit that arises from two men working together. The third point (c) is so far as I can see one that the miners could yield ; perhaps some miner can give me the reason why the change of shifts is insisted on at the mouth of the shaft.

But whether these points aro in favour of the companies cr not, 1 think tho directors, who no (jonbt consider them«elves a grade or two above miners, should have put tha points in dispute to arbitration, and not have given the miners the handle they have.

Both sides seem to have settled down to a grim struggle. Something like L 13.000 a week is being lost to the men in wages, and about double that amount to the companies, and if we take into account the damage to mines through various causes —

and mines depreciate very quickly — we shall not be far out in putting down the loss at L 50.000 a week.

Tha miners seem as determined as the Queensland shearers were some time ago, and say they can hold out for six months. Feeling is particularly bitter against one of the managers, a Mr Lane, whose effigy, placed in a coffin was drawn in procession through a howling crowd — the pall bearers being strikeis with blackened faces and dressed in white — and burnt outside the town.

A few strikes like Carnegie's and that at Broken Hill will force the Governments, willing or unwilling — especially when the Governments represent mas;es with manhood suffrage — to take into consideration the nationalising cf mines and large work?. We seem to be drifting to Socialism as fast as we can, and sofar as natural monopolies are concerned State ownership could not be much more unsatisfactory than the present gambling system. STATE MANUFACTURED AND CONTROL OF

NATURAL AGENTS,

I do not know that I have drawn your attention to the fact there are many State monopolies now. We have a Government monoply of tho post, telegraph, and telephone in New Zealand ; in Victoria there is a Government monoply of railways ; in India, the manufacture and sale of opium and salt is a State industry; in Fiance, I think, matches; in Spain, tobacco; in Russia, playing cards; in Germany, mining very largely, and so on.

But if I write in this manner you'll think I am a rank Socialist, aud I am not. But. those w'io refer to the monopolies I have mentioned draw attention tj tho huge concerns managed by a few men who have in various ways and under various names, established and control huge businessep. Take for instance the coal, steel, railway, kerosene, and other trusts of tbe United States, they say: If these industries and natural agents can bo controlled by a few for their benefit, but to the disadvantage of the masses 3 , why cannot tho Government assume control of them? Tbe massing of industries in the hands of a few, thpy say is, whether we are willing to believo it or not, one of the final stages in the evolution of Socialism. What do you think 1