STRIKE THREATS

Hawke's Bay Herald-Tribune, Issue 150, 13 July 1937, Page 13

STRIKE THREATS

Mr. Barnard Criticises Direct Action LAB0UR RULE MENACED Some criticism of the attitude of those responsible for the recent strike of petrol-drivers is offered by the Hon. W. E. Barnard in the latest issue of the official Labour organ, the Standard. The strike, he says, was fortunately ealled off wihout its being necessary for some responsible Minister of the Crown to visit Auckland. "I am not concerned for the moment with the case for the drivers, nor do I suggest that there is not a good case," writes Mr. Barnard. "What is of importance is the attitude of the union as declared by its secretary, Mr. L. G. Matthews." After quoting Mr. Matthews 's statement, which he describes as "bold words," Mr. Barnard continues: "But the question to be asked is how long the Labour Government will last if other bodies of organised workers act along the lines which Mr. Matthews declares the petrol drivers will pursue. Union secretaries were mostly very silent during the years of Forbes-Coates rule — and there was some reason for their silence. With a Labour. Government in power, secretaries do not hesitate to deelare what their unions will do. The point is whether they are not assisting to dislodge the Labour Government by hasty words and threats of direct action. "What do Mr. Mathews 's statements ameunt to? First, that through striking his union has succeeded in getting an early hearing by the Arbitration Court. Second, that the union will consider the position further (presumably after the Arbitration Court has dealt with the matter) 'as to whether the action talcen in ceasing work is sufficient protest effectively to gain the object of the dispute.' This appears to mean that if the union is not conceded 'the object of the dispute' by the Court, the union will give thoqght to - the question of coming out again. And 'the object in dispute'? 'We wish to make it perfectly cldar,' Mr. Matthews goes on to say, 'that we will not be satisfied with anything less than the 40-hour Week, etc.' So .fhat the Court is notified in adyanee that unless it grants the 40-hour week, etc,, the union will refuse to Tecognise the Court 's decision and a more effective 'protest' (i.e., strike) is likely to be made. "It is timely remind ourselves that the 40-hour week is the work of the Labour Government, and that the right of a union to go to the Court at all is also the work of the Labotw* Government. There can be only one government in the country — namely, that eleeted by the people. And the worker may as fairly be required to abide by the law of the land under a Labour Government as any other citizens, for the law is obligatory upon us all. Where democratic government has gone by the board', it has been largely due to lack of discipline, self-discipline, on the part of the rank and file — and when domocracy goes fascism arrives. If the practice develops in New Zealand of making use of thc law when it suits and defying it when it does not, then the stage is set for a change of government, and if that happens Mr. Matthews and his colleagues will have something to worry about. "The people of New Zealand," the artiele eoncludes, "will not tolerate for very long arbitrary interference with the government of the country, nor 1 venture to affirm will the Government itself be prepared to countenance an attitude of 'heads I wm, tails you lose' on the part of any citizens, whether organised or unorganised. "