The Grey River Argus WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 13, 1948. WORKERS’ RIGHTS

Grey River Argus, 13 October 1948, Page 4

The Grey River Argus WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 13, 1948. WORKERS’ RIGHTS

careful observer of Parliament noted last week that the Opposition seemed to have “come to light” with its opposition to the proposal —shortly to be come law —that workers employed in and about harbours should have some direct representation on the harbour boards. With equal emphasis, most of the Opposition press has gone to great lengths to persuade public opinion that there really was something solid in Professor Algie’s remark about the negation of democracy which led to last week’s scene in Parliament.

.It is not surprising that an attack should be launched on the Greymouth Harbour Board because it failed to toe the Tory line and join in the swim by boards which are almost completely dominated by members of the Opposition Party. In preferring to leave the matter to the discretion of the representatives of the people in Parliament, the Greymouth Board can be said to have taken none other than a proper and dignified attitude. That it may be in sharp contrast to the attitude of other boards, for whom Opposition speakers claimed the right to object Io the Harbours Bill in Parliament, matters not, nor does it entitle the members of the Greymouth Board to be told that they ought to defend the rights of the people. What Rights?

hi its way, the granting of representation to harbour workers —no doubt it will be inferred that only waterside workers as such wifi get representation, but that is not the wording of the Bill—is merely an extension of the principle of worker participation (but not control) in the management of business, both State and private, It is difficult to see where a distinction can be made between the rights of payers of dues, for example, and of the workers themselves, to representation. If the payers of dues have a right, then in all fairness, it ought to be conceded that the workers, who as the payers of harbour rates levied in most places, have an equal, if not a more substantial right. Even though the report of a committee, which considered harbour boards amongst a multitude of other things, might have been adverse some years ago, the very principle of democracy aboutwhich the Opposition is now so loud in praise, envisages progress, and no one will deny that democratic processes have undergone enormous changvs in the past three years. That workers have the right to election cannot be denied, but it might be admitted that the special nature of their work—their practical knowledge of the best means of doing things properly and economically—should give them at least some opportunity of putting their knowledge to a practical test round a board table. Worker Participation:

Many workers in this country were goaded into believing that the Opposition really meant what it said at the last general election when it included some inaptly titled “profit-sharing” platform in its policy, and it put the-idea this way: “The National Party wholeheartedly supports profitsharing. ■co-partnership, co-opera-tion and progress”. Beyond that and a specious claim that production had been increased by 20 to 30 per cent, by a “profit-sharing” scheme, without any increase in working hours, the Tory policy gave the workers no more hint of their intention. By now, with another two years of trying to explain it away, the Nationalists are more than cautious in their reference to this kite-flying experiment which failed to come off. They have forgotten profitsharing and the other things they claimed for it so boldly in 1946. On the other hand, the Government has always encouraged workers to prepare themselves for participation in the industries in which they are engaged, par- 1