THE SPIRIT OF NO COMPROMISE

Wanganui Herald, Volume LIII, Issue 160733, 20 August 1920, Page 4

THE SPIRIT OF NO COMPROMISE

WHO IS GUILTY? MR PRYOR’S RECENT STATEMENT (Contributed by the N.Z. Welfare League). We have read published reports of Mr William Pryor's speech at Christchurch on “a new Labour hioverncnt.” With the affirmations in favour of more friendly relations between employers and employed; the human touch of personal association in the workshops, the plan of workshop committees leading up to district councils and national councils of the single trade, or industry, we heartily agree. It has to bo recognised, however, that none of these things are in opposition to the holding of a general National Industrial Conference of employers and workers. Mr Pryor says “there is nothing in tiro Whitley Scheme providing for conferences of an aggregation of trades”; well, no responsible body has said there was, yet such national conferences have been called in Great Britain, Africa and Australia. It is when we come to deal with the calling of such a general conference that we find Mr Pryor’s statement wholly unsatisfactory. He quotes Mr Bloodworth as sayiug: “It is pe/foctly true that our main object is to assist the overthrow' of the capitalist system, and, further, no compromise is possible so far as ultimate, aims are concerned.” On that Mr Pryor says: “Gentlemen, wo have in these wmrds a complete justification of the attitude the Employers’ Federation has taken, up.” Our comment must bo plain, and it is that Mr Pryor is covering the real issue by talking rhetorical nonsense. Nobody ever proposed the calling of a National Industrial Conference to discuss the ultimate aims of either Labour or Capital, not even the Federation of Labour. The Federation of Labour in its official report of 1918, whilst affirming its revolutionary objective, adds these words: “Yet we recognise that industry must go on if the nation ia to exist, and that so long as the relationship of employers and employed continues, these two parties to the social contract can, and, indeed, must meet to discuss and endeavour to agree temporarily upon various matters. The same report supports the establishment of works committees, district industrial councils, and national industrial councils. On top of that the Federation recommended the calling of a National Conference of employers and workers to try how' far they might agree upon a working plan of operation.

WHAT DOES IT MEAN?

To the plain man of affairs this situation must appear perfectly absurd. In 1918 Labour presents a programme fo • works committees, district and national councils and asks for a general conference with the employers to discuss these matters. The Employers’ Federation says; “No, we will not meet men whose ultimate aims arc so extreme.” In 1920 the Employers’ Federation, or at least Mr Bryor. presents a programme for works committees, district councils, and national councils, but still says: “No, we cannot meet Labour in conference because the ultimate aim of these men is ‘to overthrow the capitalist system.’ ” Reduced, to simple terms the situation is that Labour says to the employers; “Wc can make no compromise with you on our ultimate aims, but we will confer with you as to how to make the best of the present system whilst it lasts.” The Employers’ Federation says; “Your ultimate aims arc too extreme, and wc will not meet you at all.” in face of an impasse of this kind to talk sentiment about the “human touch” is simply futile. In our opinion the attitude of the Employers’ Federation is opposed to the very spirit of industrial peace. The Federation is guilty _of adopting an attitude of unreasoning no-compromise, for when it_ is asked to confer upon the very questions which it lias, through Mr Bryor, placed in itn programme, it declines._ I’or this unfortunate state of affairs wc believe there is nobody in New 7 Zealand more to blame than Mr William Bryor, Secretary of the Employers’ Federation. It is time to say plainly that Mr Bryor may talk peace in the abstract for ever, but wc are convinced that the trades’ unionists of the Dominion (both moderates and extremists) never will believe that he is genuinely in favour of industrial peace. The League suggests that if the Employers’ Federation wanted a peace settlement with Labour for it to send out its chief militant advocate, who is most of his time immersed in fights, as its ambassador of pence, is a clear demonstration of utter futlity.

DOWN TO BED ROCK

Notwthstanding the pose of Mr Bryor of being the man of widest knowledge and of his Federation having the most practical insight the League reduces the issue of a general National Industrial Conference to simple terms and let the public judge ns to what is practical. The questions which affect industry can be divided into three classes;—(l) Questions of general economics, such as individualism _ versus Socialism. (2) Questions relating to the conditions of a single trade, industry or service. (3) Questions relating to the conditions governing trades, industries and services in general such as the labour laws, modes of settling disputes, etc. Now r with respect to class I it _ has never been proposed to hold a jmnt conference on these questions; w i 1 respect to class 2 it is not proposed to deal with these at a general national conference where various trades anc industries would bn represented, it m with reference solely to Inc questions in class 3 that the Welfare League has urged the need for calling a national conference cf employers,_ workers and consumers. Our reason is that there are only two ways to deal with such issues, one is by leaving them entirely to the exigencies of politics, and the other is by some mutual understanding between those actually engaged in the industries, and representations from those having most direct knowledge. The League holds that the last named course is the wisest and best. To be talking peace and acting no-compromise is simply foolishness. When the Labour side bold out the olive branch by asking to confer, not on ultimate aims, but on present issues, the employers blundered badly in relenting the offer. To talk peace at the men whom you decline to confer with is to cast doubt upon your own sincerity. If wo might tender the Employers’ Federation a hint wo would say let Mr Pryor stick to his fighting job' but give the peace making to someone who is not so deeply involved in the practices of industrial warfare.