THE ARBITRATION COURT.

Evening Star, Issue 19660, 13 September 1927, Page 4

THE ARBITRATION COURT.

TO'THE EDITOB. Sir, —Kindly allow me the opportunity to replv to vour correspondents “‘T.M.” and “Henry.” “Henry , has almost proved himself worthy ot the name. A lack of tolerance, a display of prejudice, and incorrect statements must surely wm for him the title, which he declares trade union leaders freely scatter upon those who fail to see eye to eye with them upon industrial matters. To a large extent this may be true. Trade union leaders are not supermen, and very , often do the things which they ought not to do, and leave undone tho things which they ought to do. Some members of the Employers’ Association very of .an scatter unworthy names upon individuals who fail to see eye-to eye with them upon industrial matters. “ Insane, “extreme,” “ignorant agitators is common phraseology used to try to discredit tlio person who attempts to oppose the present system of wealth production. “ Henry ” has a tendency to bow to the same weakness when lie allows himself to cry out; “Is this not Mr Harrison, the trade union secretary and aspiring politician?” as if to say: “Can any good thing come from such a man?” Well, lam guilty of being a trade union secretary, and quite reconciled that it is possible, while fulfilling such a calling, to retain the average amount of honest principles on a par with those persons wlib assume their calling to bo more important and noble. 1 must plead not guilty of political aspiration. It is quite true that during a moment oi emergency I was called upon to rush into tho camp of the opponents of the Labor Party’s ideal to try to obtain victory. If this brands mo a political aspirant tho aspiration is now dead. If “Henry” had read “T.M.’s” letter he would see there the vicious circle quite clear; there is no need for me to enlarge upon it. “T.M.” severs it into two halves, showing in one half how it affects the employer, and in the other half how it affects the employee, with a sure win for the employer whichever way you move. Again, “Henry” declares, when referring to the question of social service, that I am deeply ignorant of the subject. , Re that,true or untrue, I know not; there may bo some consolation inthe belief that mind meeting mind within the realms of reason, Home darkness may be dispelled, which, after ail, may be worth while. In my opinion there is no analogy between the social organisations which have been naipctT, and tho capitalistic system. The fundamental motive power of this system is private gain. Do tho farmers go out and suffer hardship and isolation to grow wheat that we may have bread? Do the coal companies prospect for coal that v we ma.v bo warm? Do the mill owners manufacture boots, blankets, and cloth that wo may be well clothed? Do the thrifty -individuals build houses that wo may live in comfort? If “Henry” will compare these undertakings with the ones ho mentions, such as friendly sociniies, religious bodies, and municipal enterprise,, ho, might possibly see tho difference.

“T.M.” declares that there is little or nothing in my letter. I. am sorry that ! failed to be interesting. The most peculiar part of “T.M.’s” letter is that when 1 refer to what is quoted in his previous communication. 1 am congratulated for agreeing with it. I. sincerely thought that’ ono would re.raember what one had written, . I have no need whatever to read the letter again, as I- am advised to do. Without being offensive, there: is nothing new in it, neither the first half nor the second. I will again repeat, if I failed to make it plain the last tinie, that thousands of people, not only Labor agitators, but -university.- professors, Tor years have been tolling the workers

that the employer who bases his profit ou a percentage makes money out ofa rise in wages. If the; supreme judge gives a rise in wages it is passed on to the commodities. If they come out an strike iscarrity doubles the value of the commodity ; the employer gains, the employee starves. It is within the power of the employing class to heat the wage-earnbg class every time. The second half of the vicious circle which' outlined as wrong, briefly, is the seeds of Socialism, go slow, trade union monopoly, and all the rest of the-evil things which some people declare the Communist and Bolshevist are advising the workers to adopt. Even if Uie dominion accepted tho advice which is given, and' installed all the latest inventions and most up-to-dai© machines of the world, the workers would still be compelled to fight tho employing olass all tho way to Improve their condition. “ T.M.” declares that he would exterminate the Arbitration Court, and in its place form combined committees of workers and employers. All I can tmv is God help the delegates who are appointed to express the grievances of the workers. I know ; I have had some. Any person who deliberately states that, the workers are subdued and domineered’by agitators insults thementality of the workers. lam asked why should I worry over those who “lounge in luxury’’; “tho more they spend the more labor they employ.” If this argument holds good, why not pay every working man and woman £lO per week, tor the more they spend the more labor they will employ? Would it not be far better, by a socialistic effort in tho shape of more efficient machines aijd the elimination ot waste, to increase the national volume ot wealth produced? f sincerely hope that deeper consideration may. be given to these questions, I feel satisfied that Labor agitators are not the cause of trouble, but those who feel they are anchored in good surroundings and refuse to believe it possible lor them to be wrong. — I am, etc., ••11, Harrison. September 13.

TO THE EDITOR.’ . Sir, —Having read “T.M.’s” contribution on the above subject, and not being aware of his identity, I cannot say that 1 am disappointed in it, as ho said of Mr Harrison’s remarks. This letter of “T.M.’s” may bo a masterpiece—for him. I leave your readers to judge. “T.M.” apparently would like us to believe that ho is a beuovo-lently-mindcd neutral seeking for a solution of industrial troubles. His disguise is a thin one. From remarks well on in his letterjip makes it clear on what side lie stands. His antagonism to organised Labor is revealed when ho speaks of “the domination of agitators,” and asks “why pay a parasite to got what he (the worker) earns when he can do the same by his own efforts?” Everyone knows that in the struggle for. existence it is only when tho contending parties aro about equal ill power that there is talk about arbitration, and “of employers, employees, and other community interests sitting in conclave and working in harmony for the greatest good for the greatest number, etc.” This fact being recognised, it becomes evident that tho workers should from among themselves select agitators, organisers, and secretaries, in order to present a united front with their demands—not that by so doing the_ workers are going to-be any great gainers, for there can be no true arbitration between the rubbers and tho robbed, but solely because it offers an avenue for expression and serves as an education for a greater movement. “ T.M.’s ’ class bias is shown when he says of the rich parasites who lounge in luxury “ good luck to them!” He defends their existence by stating that “tho higher they live the more they spend. The more they spend the more labor is employed.” Now, in the light of. all this I wish to ask “T.M.” where does his “up-to-date method combined with efficiency,” producing, as he declares, “ tho greatest good for the greatest number,” come in if parasitism is to be allowed? Ask that very practical man, the farmer, what ho thinks of that kind of efficiency which would allow tho Tick to batten on the sheep and the dodder to infest tho 'clover. I do not think he would be converted To such an efficiency, even were you able to prove that" it would provide more labor. I would suggest to “T.M.” that, if parasitism is to form a part of his efficiency stunt, he should devise some means for causing it to go round. Every man has a natural right to bo lazy at times. Tt is good for the health. Ask any doctor. I am a believer in efficiency, because it would give mankind a greater measure of leisure. We should work to live, and not live to work. Had we a sane system of production and distribution, which the capitalistic system can never bo, there would bo such a saving of labor force through efficiency that the working day would require to bo considerably reduced. It is in the field of distribution that the insanity of the capitalistic system is more readily recognised. Think og the waste of energy expressed in commercial travelling, 'retailing, advertising, indenting, commissioning, and lawyering, causing the community to shoulder an everincreasing number of noh-produccrs. The way out of the awful mess and waste of capitalism lies in production for use—surely a sane proposal. But this proposal is not possible under capitalism. It—capitalism—ha§ to bo scraissed.—l am, etc., J.G. September 13.