STRIKES BY PUBLIC EMPLOYEES.

Dominion, Volume 4, Issue 1042, 3 February 1911, Page 4

STRIKES BY PUBLIC EMPLOYEES.

WiiETHEti it bo a fact, or only a local legend, that our labour legislation is deeply interesting to tho statesmen of other countries, it may safely bo said that the experiments of other countries in the statutory regulation of. work and wages will always! Iμ interesting to New Zeaknd. We have said, "the experiments" of othor countries,' but there is very little of mere experiment

about them, for they differ very fundamentally from tho New Zealand law. It is, indeed, one of the most significant of facts that the main principles of the Australasian systems of industrial arbitration are denied in tho cautious enactments of other lands. Tho. very latest country to contemplate the regulation of labour disputes is France, the country above all others in which largo questions, whether of literature or art or politics, arc discussed in relation to fixed principles. The great loss and disturbance of tho great railway strike L-d M. Briand to bring in throe Bills for the prevention of any like trouble in the future, and one of these proposed to establish a system of conciliation and arbitration in labour disputes. This Bill is prefaced by a long preamble (of 30 folio pa'ges) sotting forth the Government's theory of State intervention in certain sorts of labour troubles. M. Briand has no idea of establishing a general system of arbitration; his nlan is. confined .to public utilities. It is contended in the exposi des motifs that tho railway companies are concessionaires of_ tho State, and that every "concession" is at once a private enterprise and a form of public service conducted on behalf of the State. The companies are described as being tho agents of tho State, which, in granting tho concession, has not divested itself of the right of intervening when the exigencies of the service itself, or of public order, demand intervention.

As to the employees, it is argued that they havo no natural or legal right to strike or wilfully stop work altogether; the general theory being that the status of persons employed in public services is to the status of soldiora or rjolico. A railway strike is treatedas a direct attack on the nation's life, and since there could be no lock-out on the railways, there must be no strike. It is also pointed out that the employees in a large public service differ essentially irom the ordinary worker, being free from the fear of present unemployment and the chance of a final destitution. Having thus assured itself of its right to legislate against the confusion of the railway services, tho French Government had to consider the difficulty involved in. .depriving the workers concernod of their strongest means of obtaining improved terms of employment and the equal difficulty created by an invasion of the companies' control of their businesses. No New Zcalander will fail to contrast tho French Government's careful reasoning, and its desire to walk on firm ground, with the blundering' recklessness and indifference to principles and to potentialities, that havo characterised the work of the New Zealand experimenters. Provision is made for the holding of periodical conferences between the delegates of the employers and their men, and for the setting up of district committees for the arrangement of local differences. Differences not settled by the local 'committees ,aro to be referred to.a Central Board of Conciliation! ■ Above these committees there will be set an Arbitration Court, consisting of two representatives of each party to the dispute and one or three members taken, from tho list, of qualified arbitrators appointed by Parliament. Tho verdict of the Court would have the force cf a judgment by a Court, of law, and provision is made for 'the punishment of any infraction of the "Court's decrees.

It has already been established by the French Courts that an actual strike of State railway employees is illegal, but no penalties have been prescribed. M. Bmand's measure proposes to ,raako such strikes illegal, "every association .or union" being 'forbidden either to ■ "prompt the railway employees to strike, or to plan or organise a strike.". Fon infraction .of'this law. any. or all of. the officials'6f the 'uniori.,may,be pro-, scouted, and the penalty affixed is a ■fine of from ;C2-£o-£B, or imprisonment from , fifteen days to three montha. ; Finally, 'a' clause' aims directly at individual strikers on the railways, , who will bo liable to two years' imprisonment. The chances of success for such a law seem to be very good, although it is perfectly certain that a general- Arbitration Act on the New Zealand model would -bo disastrous in France. In the meantime it is worth while to notice the difference between the French and the Now Zealand methods of framing industrial regulation, . Can anybody ~ imagine any member of our Government troubling himself to "think 'out the. principles involved,in .any of his proposals in tho manner of M. ' Bhiand f