Bay of Plenty Beacon Published Mondays, Wednesdays and Fridays. MONDAY, MAY 19, 1947 DANGEROUS DEVELOPMENTS

Bay of Plenty Beacon, Volume 11, Issue 30, 19 May 1947, Page 4

Bay of Plenty Beacon Published Mondays, Wednesdays and Fridays. MONDAY, MAY 19, 1947 DANGEROUS DEVELOPMENTS

REPRESENTING the shocked conscience of the public, 10,000 ex-seryicemen and a similar number of women propose to organise themselves into a vigilante force to assist the police in maintaining order if chaos develops from the strikes which have paralysed transport in Victoria and to perform the work which the strikers refuse to do. There could be no more arresting illustration of the danger of direct action by organised unions against the public. The ordinary people of Australia have been goaded beyond endurance by pressure groups which trample upon the law and by inflicting suffering on the people hope to force capitulation to their demands. In Australia as in every other country the vast majority of the people are struggling for economic recovery—to fill empty storehouses, to supply goods which are scarce, to provide adequate clothing and some of the luxuries to which they are entitled. All these efforts have been gravely hampered by powerful unions which have turned industry into a bear garden and the public utilities into chaos by a continuous series of strikes and other disturbances. Eventually the worm will turn, and immediately the country becomes faced with the danger of violence. If anything is calculated to bring upon Australia the most serious form of “depression” it is this wholesale destructiveness of the productive potential by unionists who are blatantly defying all law and authority—even the authority of their own chosen leaders in many cases. Only highly paid men could afford to waste the time and sacrifice the wages that have been lost by many of the strikers. In some cases the leadership of the unions is in the hands of Communists whose objective? is not a well paid and satisfied working community under the present forms of government. When revolution is the aim direct action must be expected. Yet it is difficult to believe that anything like a majority of the workers involved in the strikes would willingly collaborate in the fomentation of rebellion against the government which they elected. Why then do they select and support revolutionary strike leaders? Australia has to choose between violence and acceptance of the discipline of mutually agreed laws. There is no escape from that choice. The unions themselves have assisted in enacting industrial laws which provide them with orderly channels for the discussion of disputes and the fixing of wages. Why is that system not satisfactory? Do the men in fact wish to wreck the system? If .so, what would /they put in its place? If public or State ownership is suggested, is there any prospect of a greater share in the proceeds of industry? Most of the men are probably aware that the reverse is the case. Would Communism for instance, give them better wages and conditions? And so at last the unions are holding the people to ransom and the people are threatening to organise vigilante forces to protect themselves. In the meantime the governments stand by more or less impotently. This is the state of affairs reached in a country which has long prided itself upon its “white policy.” The vast majority are Australians. Surely there is a way out of the nightmare into which they have drifted. Is the problem of industrial relations beyond solution? Must science which has performed wonders in other fields fail miserably in the search for a system by which industry can be made to function smoothly?