The Dominion. TUESDAY, AUGUST 24, 1920. THE WATERFRONT DEADLOCK

Dominion, Volume 13, Issue 283, 24 August 1920, Page 4

The Dominion. TUESDAY, AUGUST 24, 1920. THE WATERFRONT DEADLOCK

The one material point brought out in connection witii the existing deadlock on the waterfront is that it is occasioned simply and solely by the action of the local watersides in breaking the agreement into which they entered freely and without constraint only a few months ago. The whole trouble is, due to tho refusal of the watersiders to unload the cargo of a particular ship a,t the- rate of wages specified in their agreement for a cargo of the kind—superphosphates in good condition, packed in doubh bags so as to minimise the dust nuisance. It in no way affects tho position that under a misunderstanding the men dt first employed in working this cargo were paid a higher rate than the agreement provides. That was merely a piece of good fortune for them. When the mistako was discovered, the agreement rate was offered for further work on the cargo, and it is because this rate was rejected by the watersiders that the work of the port is at a standstill, and the city is faced by an immediate and possibly prolonged interruption of heating, lighting, power, and tramway services. The breach of agree-! ment by the watersiders is not in any way modified by their expressed willingness to work other ships than the one over which the dispute arose. Their attitude is that, hav-ing-entered into a binding contract, they are willing to carry out such of its terms as suit them, while freely taking leave to break the rest. Obviously in taking this stand they are just as definitely, breaking their agreement as if they had boycotted every ship in port. Thev arc pursuing the tactics which militant Labour in this country and elsewhere .has been developing persistently _ for years _ past—tactics which aim at victimising and exploiting the public without ■ resort to an ordinary, strike. Realising, no doubt, that such strikes are no longer popular even with their dupes, the men who shape the policy of militant Labour have changed their and now rely upon "go-slow" tactics and upon fomentme detail broaclms of agreement like that which has just brought work on the Wellington wharves to a standstill. This incident obviously takes its place. in a series. It is part and parcel of a settled policy which has been illustrated in many, previous wharf disputes, and is responsible also for the limitation of output from the coal mines, which has been carried already to such a point that the whole country is living from hand to mouth so far as coal supplies are concerned. The extent to which militant Labour has developed the policy of limiting outmtt and promoting "irritation" strikesand detail breaches of agreement is demonstrated in the factthat the present interruption of coal supplies has at onco paralysed the essential municipal services upon which comfort and welfare so largely depend. Serious hardships evidently are in nrospect for the city population, and the position taken by the watersiders is that they will refrain , from imposing these hardships only if they are permitted to break thoir agreement and enforce new demands whenever they please. There is no distinction worth mentioning to be drawn between men who take leave to break an honourable and binding agreement in any particular when they please and thosa who simply throw the whole agreement overboard. It is particularly clear that unless some mcanß can be found of securing the honest observance of industrial agreements, the public must expect even worse troubles than have now befallen the oity of Wellington In the present case weak submission to the watersiders would be equivalent to inviting an indefinite- extension of their policy of dishonest exploitation. A firm stand against the latest breach of faith offers itself as tho only course consistent with self-respect and ordinary prudence. If the watersiders' union or any other is to be permitted _to break an agreement whenever it feels inclined, the public may as well make up its mind always and at_ once to grant such unions anything they care to demand. There is perhaps no immediate or complete remedy for the refusal of militant 'Labour to recognise that common honesty plavs an essential part in human dcaiinga, but it is quite time a stand was made against these frequent attempts to override, agreements and to browbeat and intimidate employers and the general public.