The Dominion. TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 25, 1919. A CASE FOR HARD THINKING

Dominion, Volume 13, Issue 52, 25 November 1919, Page 6

The Dominion. TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 25, 1919. A CASE FOR HARD THINKING

Facts which are of interest both to tho public and to coal miners are set out in the annual report of the executive of tho New Zealand Coal Mine Owners' Association. It states, in reference to the present dispute with the miuers and the limitation of output from the mines, that while at the moment there is no 'definite indication of a settlement, "it is believed that many of tho miners are so dissatisfied .with the limitation placed upon their earning power that ere long they will take matters in their own hands and accept the employers' offer, which the National Government, after full _ inquiry into the matters under dispute, described as a fair and reasonable one." Weight is given to this expression of opinion by the specific facts cited in regard to particular mines: —

All Mount Torlesse and Hoiuebush the "go-slow" policy has not been adopted durinir any portion of Uio time, while in tho Kiripaka and Green Island mines normal production has been resumed, and at Ivaitanjrata tho reduction in output is very small indeed.

It is here shown that some miners at least arc thinking independently, and refusing to be made use of by agitators who have their own onds to serve. It is so much the more likely that many miners in pits in which the "go-slow" policy is in operation are ill-satisfied with the existing state of affairs. _ They have so much reason to he clissafcisfiod with this state of affairs that when they begin seriously to think things out for themselves they will undoubtedly bring it speedily to an end. By this time the miners ought to be- well able to realise that they have been stampeded into a blind alley, and not for their own good. If they are in any doubt on the point they have only to ask themselves what object the "go-slow" policy is likely to serve and whom it is calculated to benefit. They should be able to find a full answer to such questions in their own experience. To the public the limitation of coal output has meant the restriction of supplies to a minijnum, and high priccs. Bccausq of the small output froni local mines large quantities of foreign coal havo had to bo imported at extravagant rates, and the whole population pays in high prices for the burden thus imposed on many branches of transport a.nd industry. It is, of course, obvious that the_ "go-slow" policy has brought nothing else > to the public and can bring nothing else than lbss and hardship. The fact that miners would do well to consider thoughtfully, however, is that this policy can bring them and their families nothing else than loss and hardship. At an immediate view this is as obvious as the exploitation of the public that the "go-slow" policy involves. During the last three months mine workers who aro restricting output have suffered a loss of wages which must amount in the aggregate to many thousands of pounds. The great majority had the option of accepting in August last an increase in wages which, with earlier increases, would have given contract workers an average, of 35 per cent, above pre-war rates and wage' .workers 45 per cent, above these rates. The immediate loss to the miners and their dependants is the difference between the wages they might havo earned at these, rates and the amount they have nctuallv earned during the last three months.

No cloubfc the miners have beon told that, if they bear this loss they will eventually find themselves better placed to enforce extreme demands. They are greatly deceived if they believe anything of the kind. What they have succeeded in doing is to convince the public, including many wage-earners who were once inclined to sympathise with them, that the miners are prepared to inflict wholesale injustice and hardship on the rest of the population in the hope of gaining their own selfish and unreasonable ends. It might do a great deal to hasten a settlement of tho coal trouble if a delegation of working miners, not union officials, could be sent round to interview v;agc-e<irn-ers and their womenfolk in different parts of the country, and hear from their own lips what they think of the coal shortage and of the men who are causing it. If the miners who have been led astray are in faet beginning to think for themselves they will be wise not to overlook the fact that they have made themselves almost universally unpopular and disliked and that they were never worse placed than they are to-da.v to enforce any demand they may havo in mind. If they are sceptical on the point they can readily ascertain the truth by inde-" pendent inquiry and observation. Honestly facing the facts, the m'iners will find it as clearly established that they are pursuing the,

i "go-slow" policy in all respects to their own loss as that under it they arc subjecting the public to gross injustice and hardship. The heart of tho matter is reached when it is considered that since the "go-slow" policy cannot benefit either the minors or the general public it must be intended to benefit some third party. No great mental effort is needed to enable the miners to porceive that tho only people who car, possibly derive any benefit from the policy of limiting output are those who organise this policy. The benefit here is clear and unmistakable. From the point of view of the agitator who thrives on conditions of industrial strife and nnsettlcmcnt, the "go-slow" policy is much to be preferred to the strike. In the climax of an unsuccessful strike, when his erstwhile dupes are angry and disillusioned, such an agitator is apt to lose his job. "Gor.row'' tactics, because they tend, while avoiding such a climax, to produce lasting unsettlement and acute antagonism between employers and employed, offer the .imitator n much better chance of making his. position secure. A.ll the facts arc in plain sight if tho miners and other workers who have been misled by advocates of "direct action" care to- look at them. For the miners the issues are particularly plain. Thoy arc offered wages which in any fair comparison represent rates as high as are paid to any class of workers in the Dominion. Public opinion is hehind them in their demand for the satisfaction of legitimate grievances in regard to such questions as housing. At the same time it is open to them, if they take up a reasonable attitude, to secure, with increased wages and improved living conditions, "some consultative voice in the control of the mines." The latter proposal has been advanced by the Prime Ministeh. and is quoted with seeming approval by the mine owners' executive. In a word it is open to the minors to attain conditions which would compare favourably with those of workers similarly engaged in any part- of the world. Undoubtedly it would pay them to review thoughtfully tho policy under which thev are turning their back on these benefits and earning, not with the "master class," but with the working population, the reputation of men so unscrupulous and unreasonable that it is a waste of time to attempt to pin them down to a just agreement. Such a review evidently would be incomplete if it did not take-full account of the part played by' the authors of this policy. When the miners can be induced to really think out these questions for themselves it will not be long before the agitators are sent packing. The facts which so well deserve attentive consideration from the miners arc obviously of crucial interest also to the general public, particularly at a time when the Parliamentary machine is being reconstituted. The point which stands out clearly at the stage to which the coal dispute has been carried is that the attack made bv the miners on the public is largely accounted for by the' false leadership of men who are intent only on promoting industrial strife in orde.r to maintain themselves in a position of influence and profit. Thus the public has to reckon not only with industrial groups of an insurgent tendency, but with men whose wliole aim it is to impede and make impossible the establishment of industrial peace. Those men arc reactionaries of the worst type. Progress is nothing to them, though the word is often on their lips. All that they care about is the promotion of the industrial strife that enables them to assume the pose and collect the emoluments of Labour dictators. Men of this type, some of theni supporters of the "goslow" policy and all that it connotes, and others, careful opportunists, ' who yet studiously avoid any condemnation of such methods and tactics, are at preseflt seeking election to Parliament. One category or the other will include every member of tho Labour-Socialist group. Any elector who supports such a candidate will vote for the extension of sucli conditions as now obtain in' tlio coal industryconditions in which the public is outrageously victimised and workers who arc offered high wages and prosperity endure instead comparative poverty and incur the Wellgrounded antagonism of the whole community.