The Wanganui Chronicle MONDAY, JULY 22, 1946. THE SHIPPING HOLD-UP

Wanganui Chronicle, Volume 90, Issue 167, 22 July 1946, Page 4

The Wanganui Chronicle MONDAY, JULY 22, 1946. THE SHIPPING HOLD-UP

THE hold-up of the coastal shipping in contravention of the instructions of the Seamen’s Union brings the men concerned into conflict with three parties—the employers, the union and the public. Each of these three parties is entitled to take action against, those who are inflicting such heavy losses. The employers are in the least favourable position to enforce their claims. They are parties to a dispute in which they may, or may not. have merit on their side. As parties to the dispute they are required to engage in negotiations with the Seamen’s Union and not with the men concerned. If the employers endeavoured to go behind the union and deal direct with the men who are now on strike the action would immediately call forth very strong protests. The trades union concerned is the accredited channel through which the men may approach the other parties to the industrial dispute. The trades union as an organism lias rights as against its own individual members. The members are required to work with and to support their own union. Not to do so means the negation of trades unionism and the breaking down of collective bargaining. If that goes overboard then the sailors will find themselves in a less favourable position than they have been since the lion. James Miller led the maritime strike in 1895. Yet this is precisely the end that will be achieved if every ship’s crew can ignore the directions of the union and engage in a strike. The right to strike is a valuable instrument, but it may easily prove to be a two-edged sword. The public is deeply concerned in the situation that now exists. The sailors are making war on every home in the Dominion, robbing it of comfort just as much as does a thief who empties the coal-bin in the night. The public has a right to be protected from the restrictions of supply imposed on them by a minority in the union itself. The question which must be faced is whether this industrial warfare against the community is to be tolerated. If it is then the pulllie should be told that it is at all times at the mercy of any irresponsible body of men. Security in the economic sense will thereupon be known not to exist. Continuity of supply will have passed into the limbo of the lost. If the public is prepared to accept such a situation then the whole fabric of society may be destroyed piecemeal. No man may know when he goes out in the morning whether there will be means available to him to return home at night. General impoverishment must result from such a chaotic condition of society. To-day is the day of social insecurity and the sailors are providing an excellent demonstration of social chaos. The chilling experience must be expected to teach many people usually untouched by argument. But should the public believe that it is wrong to permit of part of the economic machine withholding its functioning, then some action is required of the Government. In the interests of trades unionism some action is required by the Seamen’s Union against its own members, and the employers who will have suffered considerable damage through having their whole organisation put out of operation have a right of action against those who have inflicted this unnecessary loss upon them. It would be as well if at least one of the three parties affected took action against those who have caused such widespread loss, and it would be preferable that each in turn should take indipendent action on its own account. If such action were taken the probability is that those who are disrupting society would b-sitate to follow again the course they are now pursuing without regard to the suffering entailed bv their conduct.