The Daily News FRIDAY, APRIL 8, 1927. DISARMING LABOUR.

Taranaki Daily News, 8 April 1927, Page 6

The Daily News FRIDAY, APRIL 8, 1927. DISARMING LABOUR.

To anyone who has even a moderate conception of the evolution of trade unionism and the state of militancy to which it has now attained, it will be plainly evident that the provisions of the Trade Disputes and Trade Unions Bill, which has just been read a first time in the House of Commons, will prove a direct challenge to extreme Labour. .At the same time, in view of the enormous deficit in the Home Budget, due mainly to the effect of last year’s disastrous strikes, it is not surprising to find that, in order to save the country -and the-indus-tries which are its life blood, the time has arrived, not to strike a blow at trade unionism, but to purge it of those dangerous ‘ ex- 1 erescenses which; act .as a menaces, co industry, lead to great loss,, promote class - warfare, arid encourage sabotism. It will be nbticed the Labour complains that ‘‘this amazing measure has been introduced without a mandate”; that it is a purely irresponsible measure “fomented by a Tory organisation, supplemented by kindred organisations and employers, and plotted iri Cabinet while Mr. Baldwin (the Premier) was making hypocritical speeches about ‘good-will and peace’ in industry.” Such a tirade is only what might be expected from that source. Looking at the matter as .one of policy) the only question is whether such a drastic measure is necessary. It iriay fairly and justly be argued that if the Government considers the provisions of this new Bill will have a restraining influence on the power of the unions to paralyse the trade of the country and to inflict severe hardships and huge losses, not only upon the workers themselves, but upon all classes of the community, then it is their duty to induce the House to pass a measure designed to remedy the present evils, always provided that the Bill is so framed as not to interfere with useful and legitimate objects for which trade unionism was originally instituted. It can easily be conceived that a repressive measure of this kind can only be justified on the score of necessity, and no impartial critic can seriously question that necessity. It is so self-evident that no mandate is requisite, and instead of beftig open to the gibe of hypocrisy in framing the Bill and at the same time stressing the need for peace and good-will in industry, the Government should be credited with taking steps to promote industrial concord by what is akin, to preventive methods in sanitary science. The one is a corollary to the other. The matter is one that concerns the Empire as well as the Mother Country. While it will doubtless arouse a storm of vituperation and threats throughout Britain and wherever Moscow Communism has its votaries, it should consolidate moderate Labour on the side of law and order. As a matter of course all the resources and machinery of the extreme unionists will be brought into play in violently opposing the Bill, and it will certainly be politic on the part of those who support the proposals in the Bill to endeavour by judicious propaganda to educate the workers, not only as to the need for some such action, but that it is in the best interests of trade unionists, who will thereby regain their independence rind not be subject to the dictatorship of union officials. Apparently there is a feeling among the Liberals—who might be expected to “wait and see” the strength of'the opposition— to refer the Bill to a Royal Commission, but what benefit would accrue from that course it is difficult to conjecture. It is. either a policy measure or nothing. At'the same time there can be no valid objection to refer the measure to a Select Committee empowered to take a reasonable amount of evidence on both sides, a course which might result in smoothing off any angles in the provisions which may be deemed capable of unnecessary irritation. In the main these provisions appear to meet the worst of the present evils connected with strikes and other Labour weapons. If some of the punitive provisions appear to be severe, the extremists have only themselves to blame, because their methods have been growing until a point of endurance has been reached when the country can no longer afford the crushing loss of revenue arising from their obsession for dictatorial powers which can be utilised for ends’ totally at variance with the welfare of the country and its people. Persuasion having failed to secure industrial peace, legislation must take a hand.