The Dominion. THURSDAY, SEPTEMBER 10,1908. THE NEW WEAPON AGAINST STRIKES.

Dominion, Volume 1, Issue 298, 10 September 1908, Page 6

The Dominion. THURSDAY, SEPTEMBER 10,1908. THE NEW WEAPON AGAINST STRIKES.

v No time has been lost by the partisan friendß of- tho hopeless principle of the Arbitration Act in moving against the Court's decision to make tho penalty of striking the loss of all the benefits that the strikors have obtained on the understanding that they will not go on strike. Mr. Laurenson has already addressed to tho Minister for Labour a question that implies his anxiety for a legislative curtailment of tho Court's powors. Several Labour advocates in Parliament have expressed their hostility to the Court's very sensible excrciso of tho one means of chocking the conscioncelcss exploitation of tho Act by a section of trades-unionism. Appoals arc being made on behalf of the law-abiding unionists who may suffer through the action of a small section of workors in an industry covered by an Arbitration Court award. In short, there has already begun the expected outcry of trades-unionism against tho longoverduc assault upon its liberty to obtain good terms by giving a bond precedent to seeking better terms by repudiating that bond. The action of a union that orders a strike against an award is exactly like tho action of a man who, after obtaining the privilege of making a peaceable bargain with another, coolly completes tho contract and then suddenly draws a gun and presents it at his victim with tho command, " Your money or your life! " How anybody with any sense of justice can applaud the maintenance ' of conditions under which such a thing is possible, or oppoao

the logical way of ending those conditions, passes our understanding. The issue raised by the Court's latest decision was made very clear in the interesting dialogue in which Judge Sim yesterday drove into a corner the union secretary who rashly attempted to show cause why tho new anti-striko clauses should not be included in the award in the general labourers' disputo. Of the merits of that dispute we havo nothing to say. Me. Reakdon argued that tho Court's new policy would bo unfair to the workers, as it might penalise tho whole body of employees in an industry for tho unauthorised action of a few men. Tho Judge promptly asked whether tho Trades Council to which Mn. .Reardon's union was affiliated had not taken over a strike and raised money for.its prosecution. The lame reply was that " surely, from a sentiment of pity for their wives and children, it was natural for the council to do something." Tho Judge asked very pointedly why the council had not:ordered the men to return to work. " What the men want to do," he said, " is to havo strikes and arbitration too." Tho strike in question "took place because a large majority of unions seemed to regard strikes as a perfectly proper thing Men who went out on strike were encouraged by tho Labour leaders to go out." Tho harassed Mr. Eeardon could only say that the workers "claimed to withhold our labour if they thought fit." His Honour agreed; "but you must not do it for the purpose of coercing tho employers to give you something which you can't get from the Court." And so the dialogue went on, until the Judge reached the decisive questions: " How many unions in New Zealand have expressed their disapproval of any strike that has taken placc 1 Did they express disapproval of the slaughtermen's strike?" Mr. Reardon could only reply that " it was very hard to express disapproval of the' slaughtermen's strike." No doubt Mr. Reardon did his best: probably no Labour. advocate could have kept his wickets up against the bowling of Judge Sim. But how clearly was the policy of the Trades Hall agitators exposed in all its justice 1 The amazing thing is that they seem to expect that the public will approve a wrong that is patent to everybody. Mr. Laurenson will havo time, beforo his question is answered, to realise what will be the conscquonce of such a legislative ' restriction of tho Court's powers as will grant a further liberty to tho unions' to laugh at justice. Such a restriction as will leave the Court free only to fix hours arid wages will merely drivo tho disease inwards, and, by fostering wrong and injustice, hasten the inevitable repeal of the Act. The sooner the Act is repealed the better, of course, but wo can demand that its progress towards repeal shall bo freed as far as possible from the intolerable wrongs that would result from tho degradation of tho Court and the reservation to a political party of the business of enforcing tho Court's decrees. As to the plea that tho new policy of tho Court may cause all the workers in an industry to suffer for tho sins of a few law-breakers, it is almost sufficient to reply with tho question put by Judge Sim: "How many unions in Now Zealand have expressed their disapproval of any striko that has taken place ? " The Labour advocates overestimate tho shortness' of .' the public's memory if they think that anything but laughter will greet this pathetic picturo of a union as a figure of wronged innoconco, deploring and'censuring a striko of its members, and suffering for their offences. The unions can easily prevent strikes if they choose, or, rather, if they can gain nothing from strike tactics.' And tho Court has simply adopted a policy under which strikes will not pay. Once, 'when Sir William Russell was a Cabinet Minister, he was assured by the police that they could not obtain convictions for sly grog-selling in a certain town in which sly grog-selling was notorious. He merely announced that some unpleasant things would happen to the polico if they did not bestir themselves. The convictions came very promptly. So, in this case, the unions, which Mr. Reardon wishes us to believe are unable to' check the unauthorised lawlessness of individual ■unionists, will take good care that these individuals are kept in order.