STRIKE LAWS

Dominion, Volume 11, Issue 146, 9 March 1918, Page 8

STRIKE LAWS

$ THE NEW BILL IN NEW SOUTH WALES STATE PREMIER REVIEWS MAIN FEATURES Two leading features in the comprehensive New South Wales Amending .Arbitration Bill were elucidated by the Premier (Mr. W. A. Holman) during a recent debate in the State Legislative Assembly. (The main points of the measure have already been reviewed in The Dominion.) "Here is a measure," said the Premier, "which, good, bad, or indifferent, is a great constructive piece of legislative work. The word of command has obviously gone forth. We read in 'The Worker,' "There is a certain me.thod by which we may hope to kill Beeby's Bill.' And from that time onwards hon. gentlemen opposite, who, like the critics in Sheridan's play, when they, do agree, display a unanimity that is wonderful, nave been like those of whom it is said: 'Two minds with but a single thought,' Two hearts that beat as one.! (Ministerial laughter.) "I believe I am summing up the Opposition attitude generally when I say that the clause referring to strikes and lock-outs has been described by most speakers on that side as a deliberate attempt made by this National Government to rob the workers of dearly-woh privileges. (Opposition cheers.) Strikes and Look-outs Forbidden. "The first Arbitration Act which dealt with the repression of strikes and lock-outs in New South Wales was the Arbitration Act of 1901. The years 1890 and 1893 left hphind them a state of things in which the triumphant and cock-sure boast of the union organiser, of which we hear so much to-day, was never dreamt of in our land. The unions of that period—l. will not say at any particular moment —were slowly, exceedingly slowly, gaining strength. The men who accepted the first Bill n-are men like my hon. friend, Mr. Edden. then in the prime of his powi ers, with his unrivalled experience in the world of unionism; men like Mr. Donald M'Donnell, the capable and broad-minded secretary of the Shearers' Union; like the Hon. Mr. M'Gowen, then leader of our party, and if I may be permitted to add, men like myself. It took men like that W know just what unionism—unaided, helpless, broken, disorganised unionism—could do iu that time of industrial depression, of which my hon. friends ooposite have no idea. "Men like Mr. M'Gowen and Air. Edden, who -were the approved spokesmen, travelled the country. They said'We do not want strikes; we have had enough of strikes; wo want some method by which the worker can Get what he wants by fair and reasonable notion.' "That was the attitude of Labour in the rear 1901. That has continued to he the official attitude of Labour fight up to the present time. Never has there been any resolution <mrrieu by a representative Labour Conference, either State or Federal, repudiating Labour's adherence to the principle of arbitration. They are still committed to it. In the teeth of that we have hon. members telling us that the hope of Labour ■ in the future is not arbitration.but one big union. "What is wanted is to get a system which will give a decent deal to those unions who have a kick and to those which have none.

Suggested Strike Against the Bill

"The kind of strike which is spoken or by'' the 'Worker' newspaper in its weekly article, How to Defeat Beeby s Bill, as the only kind of strike which is to be successful—that is, striking with suddenness and surprise; that is what the 'Worker' says—was just as effectively forbidden by the Act of 1901 as it was by any other. So far as the sudden, the lightning strike was con : cerned, that Act forbade it, and that Act was accepted by the Labour Party of that day. , •,,„;,, "The Labour legislation of 1901' forbade the lightning strike; that of 1804 by the Commonwealth forbade any kind of strike or anything in the nature of a strike or lock-out. By 1908 tho central weakness of our own State Act of 1001 had manifested itself. That central weakness was that there was only a single tribunal—one court, one president and his two associates, and cftses set down bad to wait for six, 12, and 18 months, and in certain instances even two years, before they could bo reached. For those periods grievances vrerit unredressed because of the congestion of the business before the Arbitration Courts. I am speaking now of the Court over which the late Mr. Justice Cohen used to preside. In the year 1908 Mr. Wade, being then in office, introduced his famous Act of that year. I challenge contradiction in the broadest way when I saytliat it was never condemned because it prohibited strikes, the Labour movement of that day could not oondemn Mr. Wade's Act for prohibiting strikes while it supported the Federal Act, which prohibited strikes just as emphatically. The cry was—and it was not without some justification—that' Mr. Wade's Act, by permitting access to the Courts by unorganised workors, was_ ultimately going to undermine unionism.

Mr. Beeby's First Bill. ' "I pass on to the next milestone in the progress of this legislation ,in our State,.which was the Act of"1912, in-, troduced by the very Minister who introduces tliis Bill to-day. The Leader of the Opposition, the hon. member for Paddington, and many others who were with us in support of this Government in the year 1912, will rot for one moment suggest thai the Bill of 1912, as introduced by the Minister into this House, did not represent the final views of the Labour movement of New South Wales. If a trade union desiring to preserve its right to strike chose not to register itself as an industrial union, and then called its members out on strike, provided it complied with the other two conditions, namely, that it had not broken an award and had given reasonable notice, that strike was permitted. That. is precisely the, principle which the 1 Minister, has introduced in his Bill'to-day. Here are the two clauses, the clause of 1912 and the clause of to-day. Let some hon. member rise on that side of the Houseand show us where is the fundamental difference which makes the one acceptable and which makes the other anathema. During the past few years there has been a growing tendency to rely on strikes, together with a growing indifference to the problems of arbitration, and a growing inability, it I may say so without offence, to grapple with these problems in a constructive and helpful way. Hon. members do not discuss this Bill with the. idea of perfecting it, because in their hearts lor years past thev have been accustomed to the belief that the emancipation ot labour will not be won by arbitrat on, but bv the strong arm of the strike. , "It'is a sign of degeneration.and or growing intellectual and moral weakness in a movement like ours when it repudiates appeals to justice and says, 'Let us have ono big union, and then with obr own strong arm we shall be able to dictate our own terms. We have not seen recently in Australia arbitration working under the conditions of a fallinc labour market. Who will sat that that will not come when this war' is over? I believe it will." The

whole of the authorities of the world believe that it will. Can hon. members opposite give their clients any guarantee that there will be uo falling market in Australia when this war niiI'shes? When that day comes they wijl cry to' Heaven an Arbitration Act to shield them. The official organ of the Opposition Party tolls its deluded readers that the way to defeat Beeby's Bill is to have one big organisation and. to adopt its own tactics outside the Arbitration Court. What is that but a, strike ? A email Oligarchy. "The control which has passed away from the democracy of our industrial life into the hands of a small oligarchy —a body no doubt of able men, men I believe who are honest and conscientious, bur. men certainly not marked out by nature or position to determine the lines or fortunes of their fellow-: workers—must be restored. This Bill does those two things—it secures to the individual unionist the privileges and rights which democracy carries in its train ; it secures to the organised'unions the right to,elect in what manner they will fight for_ the right of deciding how their industries shall be carried on. M At the close of his speech the Premier was enthusiastically cheered from the Ministerial side, his speech bein?: a masterly exposition of the Government--aims.