LABOUR AND THE COMMUNITY

Dominion, Volume 11, Issue 18, 16 October 1917, Page 4

LABOUR AND THE COMMUNITY

A common and yet astonishing feature of the attitude and policy of a. great many industrial unions in this part of the world is the assumption of their membci'3 or ruling officials that the community to which they belong has no rights. Putting the matter in a slightly different way, it may be noted as amazing that trades unionists, or a considerable number of them, arc unable to sec the foolishness of stirring up unnecessary strife and controversy, very often over trifles, when they and all the rest of the community have so much to gain from the smooth working of the industrial machine. In the detached view of any reasonable man or woman it can only be regarded as n trite platitude to sav that each section of tho community owes a duty to tho rest, and that all have everything to gain by seizing and cultivating the advantages of cooperation and everything to lose by needless strife friction. Yet it is probably not going too far to say that the biggest obstacle to social betterment in_thia country and in others which enjoy much the same advantages and opportunities is the refusal or inability of an important section of organised Labour to see and act upon this very obvious truth. Both in big and little things organised Labour, as its policy is now regulated, is constantly showing itself blind or indifferent to the rights of the community and consequently to its own interests. Pointed comment on the folly of parading petty details as grounds of industrial dispute was made by Mr.. Justice Stringer in the_ Arbitration Court yesterday. _ His remarks are of wide application, and may be quoted for their general interest, quite apart from the.merits of tho particular case lie had under review. "It seems to me to be extraordinary," he said, "that rational beings cannot work under an agreement of this kind without these hair-spliting points as to, say, three-quarters of an hour for dinner instead of a, full hour, under spedial circumstances.''" His Honour has only said what a great many people, including not a few trades unionists, have long been thinking and are increasingly disinclined to rest content with merely thinking. In their cumulative effect tho harassing and unreasonable tactics which so many union officials affect in their dealings with employers impose a serious check on industrial development. Even if the matter went no further, the community would have every right to resent these tactics as an attack upon its common interests, those of the offending unionists included. . But the matter goes, in fact, a, great deal further. Tho policy of stirring up disputes over unimportant trifles, malign in its inv mediate effects on industry and progress, is at the samo time' responsible for tho periodical outbreak of much graver troubles. The narrow and restricted outlook which makes such a policy possible is undoubtedly responsible also for insane attacks on the. community like the disastrous strike of which the last embers are at present flickering out in Australia. facts arc now familiar, and it is clear that only : blind failure on the part of tho , unionist leaders concerned to appreciate their responsibilities as members of a civilised community-—the blindness which has so often appear- • ed both in Australia and in this ' country in affairs of smaller moment , —will account for tho line of action j thoy pursued. The issues raised ( were admirably stated by Judge ( Heydon, in the New South Wales , Arbitration Court, when he was call- ' ed upon to cancel the registration of a union which had deliberately . violated an honourable agreement, freely entered into, by refusing to . coal transports. His words command attention as an eloquent denunciation of conduct which imounts to a repudiation of all moral and national obligations, but itill moro as a forcible declaration that the community can no longer tolerate such conduct:

.... And theso men (ho said) who have carried their mania so far as to declare the Australians in the trenches black (for that is what their conduct amounts to) have tbo incredible insolonco to call the loyalists who havo taken their places scabs. If they are themselves a fair sample of unionists, which God forbid, and if tho men who took up their work ore a fair sample of scabs, then is unionist a term of the foulest disgrace, and scab stands out as a title of lofty honour. Between such and such scabs let me be a scab a million times over. The great union of Australiamay Heaven protect her from domestic fools and imported traitors! —is that to which these- so-called scabs have proclaimed their loyalty, and not ona of us can do better than range up besida them. There stands the true unionist, and such callous treachery, inch scal>bing on the men at tho front, as has been shown in this case, is as much lower than ordinary scabbing as Australia stands higher than an ordinary trades union. . . . As a system of defenco of the interests of tho workers, unionism deserves all honour and assistance; as a system of faithless .disloyalty,. it must inevitably, as soon as its character is recognised, bo swept away by tho indignation of the community. In these trenchant words JraoE Heydon has expressed the ' settled conviction of all who are capable oi intelligently facing the facts. Tho community at large has every right to demand of organised Labour, as of eVery other organised industrial force, not only honest good faith, but a reasonable spirit of accommodation. Late events in Australia afford striking proof that industrial organisations which deny this claim are not only guilty of treason to the community but aro inviting disaster.