One Big Union" Again.

Press, Volume LV, Issue 16429, 24 January 1919, Page 6

One Big Union" Again.

In referring a few days ago to the "One Big Union" movement in Australia, we pointed out that Labour was by no means unanimous regarding the advantages of the project. That was made cloar by the statements of officials of important unionsj and it has been emphasised, since we wrote, by further statements in Australian papers and by the cable messago in yesterday's issue, iyhich reported the condemnation of the proposal by a number of New South Wales 'Labour leaders, on tho grounds that it involves Bolshevism, revolution, and anarchy rule by extremists. When tho latest mail to hand left Australia, the "One Big Union" Conference was still sitting in Melbourne, but matters had proceeded far enough to givo a good idea of the nature of tho scheme, which was being formulated for submission to unionists throughout Australia. Tho gist of tho scheme lies in the preamble adopted by the preliminary Congross in Sydney last August, and acceptod by the inter-State Conference in Melbourne. This set forth, inter alia, tho gross economic fallacy that "the working class produce " all value,'' and that the interests of tho working class and the capitalist class are in constant conflict. Clauso 3 runs as follows:—

"Between these two classes the struggle must continue until capitalism is abolished. Capitalism can only be abolished by the workers uniting in one class-conscious economic organisation to take and hold tho means of production by revolutionary, industrial and political action. 'Revolutionary action' means action to secure a complete change, namely, the abolition of capitalistic ownership of the means of production —whether privately or through tho State—and the establishment in its place of social ownership by the whole community. Long experience has proved the hopeless futility of existing political and industrial methods, which aim at mendin" and rendering tolerable, and thereby perpetuating, capitalism —instead of ending it." It was decidcd to classify all labour in six departments—building and construction, manufacture and generaljiroduction, transportation and communication, agriculture, land, nnd fisheries, civil service and public utilities (in which the police and members, of fire brigades were included), and mining. These six department are to be divided into as many divisions as may bo ne-

cessary to meet industrial requirements, and these again will l>e classified into sub-divisions, sections. and j mixed soctions. Subdivisions will consist of workers in kindred or closely allied occupations, sections of workers in a given locality or shop, and mixed sections of persons engaged in various occupations in localities where there are not sufficient of ~ny one calling to form a subdivision or section. The main administrative body is to be a Grand Council, consisting of a president and secretary, elccted by the whole of tho members, and two delegates from each of the six departments, which will each elect its representatives. There will also be a Provincial Council in each State, consisting of a president, secretary, and a representative of each department, and a section committeo for each section. A considerable number of the officials will be .paid. The secretary of the movement in New South Wales forecasted an annual expenditure in that State of £83,150, divided among 319 individuals, ranging from six Federal executive members at £000 a year apiece to fifty girl clerks at £130. The Melbourne conference reduced this official list by thirty, but no indication was given in the reports as to which end of the list suffered reduction. As we have shown, Now South Wales Labour men have not hesitated to express opposition to tho "one big union" scheme, and Victorian trade union leaders of the moderate type are equally ready to criticise. One of these is reported as saying that it was "too re- " markable to be a coincidence that as " soon as the I.W.W. was declared an " unlawful body, the 'one big union' 'organisation should'spring up with " practically the same objectives, the " same people behind it, and a similar " preamble, with a sop in the shape of a " pretended advocacy of political action " put in to beguile the unwary." Tho older men who have been building up trade unionism for many years, are threatened with displacement by advocates of the "one big union," who have tried, unsuccessfully, to secure positions in the craft unions and who are anxious to capture the highlv remunerative positions which will be dpen if the scheme is accepted. Only the largest craft unions now pay officials even as much as £300 a year. As to whether the project will be adopted by Australian workers, it is pointed out that it has yet to secure the support of the members of the skilled unions, who contribute a large propprtion of Australian unionists, and it is doubted whether a scheme that lumps skilled and unskilled together in one system will commend itself to the former. Tho objective of the "one big union" is sufficient to ensure a good deal of attention being given, outside as. wed as inside Labour circles, to tho progress of the project. The campaign will at least indicate tho strength in Australia of the Bolshevists and the sano unionists respectively. |