THE H.B. TRIBUNE THURSDAY, DECEMBER 1, 1927 ARBITRATION AT STAKE

Hawke's Bay Tribune, Volume XVII, 1 December 1927, Page 4

THE H.B. TRIBUNE THURSDAY, DECEMBER 1, 1927 ARBITRATION AT STAKE

’’jj-HE CABLE NEW Si from Australia received to-day shows that issue has been most seriously joined between the waterside workers and the shipping companies over the question of overtime work. On the real practical merits of the case as between the two parties to the dispute very little can be said at this distance. We can, however, understand that the companies are making a stand for the observance of the awards of tlie Arbitration Court which has been established by law for the adjustment of differences between employers and employees. In this respect, therefore, there can be no doubt whatever but that they have right on their side and that, wnether or not for their own advantage also, they are taking a stand for the public benefit. bo far as one can gather from the messages so far received, they are quite willing that any alleged grievance advanced should be furthei considered by the proper tribunal. What they insist upon, and what we fancy most people will consider they are justified in insisting upon, is that, in the meantime, the findings of that tribunal shall be observed. It does not seem that any good argument can be adduced against the adoption of this attitude. There can be no answer to the suggestion that it is quite useless for the owners to go before the Court again while the men manifest a determination to flout its decisions whenever they do not like them, or think they can by "direct action" secure some advantage. To give way on this point is really tantamount to agreeing to a stultification of the whole industrial arbitration system, which, on the whole, has worked well for the interests of wage-earners both in Australia and In New Zealand.

Having this latter aspect of the position in view it cannot but be wondered at how little concern seems to be shown by trades unionists as a body with regard to movements, such as that of the Australian watersiders, which strike at the very root of the arbitration system. The hundreds of thousands of them who are working comfortably under awards with which they are generally satisfied seem to think that it has nothing to do with them if others refuse to comply with the conditions laid down by the Court as essential for the conduct of any particular industry or service. It is only when actions of the kind threaten to react pretty directly upon their own employment that they seem to wake up to any necessity to enter a protest against a suspension of industrial Hvity. and even then it is only fi l i> ihosc most closely affected that the pro A comes. \\ by, it may be

asked, does not the whole trades union organisation seek to make its weight felt in the way of affording at least moral support to a system which they cannot but recognise has benefited them so much? We have trades union congresses and conferences without number, but seldom or never do we hear of such movements as these being discussed, let alone condemned. Yet the trades union leaders must be fully cognisant of what their effects are upon the whole of the wageearning class, to say nothing of the injustices imposed upon the entire community, many of whose members are incapable of further earning and of very scant income. Here in New Zealand, if Labour members of Parliament really represent the workers, we have seen how jealously the maintenance of the arbitration system is regarded as a right of the trades unionists. Yet it would seem, here as well as in Australia, that as a body they are quite content to sit complacently by and see the employers bear all the brunt and take all the odium of fighting for the observance of awards. Is this really fair, or, for that matter, politic?