WHAT'S WRONG WITH WORKERS?

Dominion, Volume 12, Issue 84, 3 January 1919, Page 5

WHAT'S WRONG WITH WORKERS?

MR. J. H. THOMAS'S ANSWER THE STANDARD OF HONOUR Some' of the causes of discontent amongst the workers, as well as the danger to the State and to tho workers themselves of some*,- existing tendencies, wero discussed recently by Mr. J. 11. Thomas, M.P., in an-interview with a representative; of "The Observer." To the question which was asked last week, "What's wrong with the worker?" he replied:— "I can quite understand" such a question when ono considers the strikes that invariably occur. To the outsider, indeed, it seems somewhat absurd to talk of the workers being anxious to prosecute the war to a successful issue [and for them at tho same timej to take a step (hat may mean ruin and disaster to the whole cause of tho Allies. But those of us in daily contaot with our people can give many reasons for this apparent contradiction. "In tho first nlace, the absiwd system by which one class of worker is paid large sums for services certainly .110 more important than others are paid a third of tho amount for is one <f the real causes of discontent. Again, the workers hear of profiteering and of excessive r>rpfit.= made by contractors, nnd they feel that they are as much entitled to fake ndvantage of the nation's difficulty as anybody else , Then there are the unfortunate delays in dealing with real grievances at their inception, whioh hnve had the effect.of creating in the minds of the workers the feeling that they can only secure justice 'by strikinor. In fact; the greatest illustration of' this feeling was the recent police strike. "All these things are a source of real discontent. But in my judgment the most serious danger, is the spirit that lias got abroad that the cannot be trusted, and that agreements made by the men's own representatives can l>e flouted at will. This 'policy appenn-s- to me not only a danger to the men themselves but 'a direct challenge to the fundamental principle of trade unionism. ..''!!, have. always demanded that'* any .agreement I made with, an employer should be loyally observed by him. Surely ir\ we are demanding that standard of honour, from- the other side it ought not. to be tbo much to say that we are prepared to give it ourselves. . That, in short, was the policy involved in'the recent railway dispute, with this addition, that-it was also a challenge by one 6ectidn of tho people to the State as a whole. And those., of us who-believe in the ultimate power of democracy and look forward to the time when labour will govern must recognise that the State in these'matters must be supreme. "It is because these principles were involved in the recent, dispute that I definitely felt there was no other course open thaii to accept tho challenge. Whether my action will have the effect of steadying matters and once more asserting the right of the majority to rulo I cannot say. But I do know, judging by the evidence already ■ 6ent to me, that the fesson not been -105t... It is ! . because I believe that, all that is best in the country should rally to this standard, and because I. believe that the future of trade unionism and: the. labour movement depends absolutely tipon its power to. give effect to bargains 'made, that I have no hesitation in saying that labour must itself deal with'this aspect of the question. \ ~ "On the other hand, it is for the Government to.recognise tho genuine causes of discontent, to recognise that the workers, as well as other classes, have given unstintedly during the war, and, above all, to see,that'in their policy:and methods they are determined not to treat human beings as mere barter—to recognise; in fact, that, out of the hell and sillier, irig of this, war there,must emerge not only a'nation that has triumphed in a righteous and just cause, but one which realises its duty and- obligations to those in the factories and workshops. In short, just as power brings responsibility so the right ,to. demooracy .to .rule carries with it 'an obligation .'to,, rule for th,6 benefit of all and not of a section."