TRANSPORT PROBLEM

Hokitika Guardian, 14 February 1920, Page 3

TRANSPORT PROBLEM

DEMANDS ! DEMANDS ! DEMANDS! WHERE DOES THE PUBLIC CuME IN? (By “Plain Speaker.”)

One branch of the transport industry of our country has been more or less in a state of turmoil for years, namely—the waterside workers. The Waterside Workers’ Federation and the Ship Owners’ Federation have as yet considered the public very little, although the general. body of tlie public is very much an interested party. We have here an •occupation much of which is cf' the nature of general labourers’ work. The watersider is not called on to serve an .apprenticeship of five or six years, as is the case of those in skilled trades. When trade was bad, crowds of workers were eating each other up in a wolfish .competition for jobs on the wharf. The wage rates then were little more than half what they are now. The sympathies of thinking people went out to the wharf labourer, and there grew up a strong sentimental solicitude for the /men who did this rough work,. To-day that sentimentalism should be entirely set aside, and, the facts should be looked squarely in the face. It is now a calling organised in one federation throughout New Zealand. It is led by shrewd. Labour bosses, who, however, •on occasions let out the truth, ( that what they arc after is not fair conditions but the whole lot—wharves, shipping, and cverytning connected with the industry. The paying of very high ,rates of wages for this work is having its reflex effect on the whole of the /trades and labouring occupations throughout the Dominion. It is right that the waterside worker should be justly and fairly paid, and given the means of living in decent circumstances but trades’ men who are trained for the work they have to do have an equally good claim. Already it has become a .most serious problem as to how we are -to get youths for the skilled trades when they sec that just as high remuneration can be got in employment that calls for no period of apprenticeship or any education. IS THERE TROUBLE LOOMING.

The opinion is very commonly held •on the waterfront and elsewhere that *1920 may see a serious upheaval in connection with the waterside industry. The waterside agreement expired on December 31 last, and no fresh agree, fluent is yet mooted. I cannot find that ■official claims have been made by either side. In the best interests of the comhnunity these claims when made should .at once be published in the Press, as ;the public is the party that ultimately has to pay. The fact must be kept in {mind that the president of the Waterside Workers’ Federation looks to “the .amount of force at the back; of the workers.” This federation is attached •to the bigger Federation of Transport Workers. There are five industrial bodies ill this federation, and the president says that “in the Transport Workers’ Federation, the national heads, representing 40,000 wtorkers, Gould be called together within fifteen minutes in Wellington.” Whether it is intended to use this army in forcing concessions is a matter of serious consideration for the public. Whatever rights the shipowners, harbour boards, and water, >side workers possess are, after all, only a trusteeship for the public, and these may be recalled if abused. There has appeared in the Press a report that new claims were decided upon by the Waterside Workers’ Conference, sitting at Napier. If what is published is to be 'the basis of claims they merit very serious consideration by the public. It is no doubt in this connection that there have been published rumours of likely strikes and lock-outs. There is certainly matter for very serious trouble looming in front of us if all the general demands reported are to be met The “Transport Worker,” which speaks for the Waterside Workers’ Federation, evidently realises that this is so. In a recent issue it seeks to get in early and cask any likely blame on the employers 'by suggesting that the employers want, ito force a strike, or enforce a lockout.

STRIKE OR LOCK-OUT? The “Transport Worker” quotes a local paper as having said: “It was probable the employers, much more than the workers regard a struggle as inevitable.” It then goes on substituting the word “strike” for the word “struggle,” and charges the employers with forcing trouble. Of course, it is just such trickiness as this that often culminates in serious industrial com flict. The wntersiders’ paper is certainly far more an incitement ’to trouble than an attempt at conciliation. It says : VThe employers look upon a strike as inevitable which means that they intend making the economic conditions of the worker such that the worker will be forced to accept this challenge. This ‘inevitable business’ is nothing new to the industrial workers; it is in ifnet the usual procedure of it lit; employers when they desire to force trouble.” This is written, mark you, not in consequence of anything the employer has said or done, but I suppose merely to show what the article affirms, namely “The workers do not now, nor ever did, desire industrial trouble.” It is quite true the workers do noti want strikes or industrial trouble, but, to judge Prom fnnfi! cAiito /O’ flmir union Insirlnrti mi-

pear to revel in it. The daily papei\ 'says: “So far concessions have been ■made on either side, and trouble lias been avoided.” The “Transport Worker” charges the employer with maWing the conditions such as will force the workers to accept the challenge. If we really mean to avoid serious trouble it is time all -this bluffing, seUVcoinmisera'tiou, and false pretence was put aside. Everybody knows that instead of their being mutual concessions with a due regard for the public interest, there has been no concession from the wdtersido {unions which would help to stimulate transport industry. The wntersiders 'have received concession after concession in pay and conditions. Shipping companies have been able to.pass it on ’in freights and fares, and the public has been .the milch cow all the time. The great consuming public are getting sick and tired of this everlasting drain. Year after ycar,| the public lias to meet rlcmnnds, demands, demands, arising out of disputes in which it has no direct voice, and which are pot even considered by a judicial body. It is time to say on behalf of the public that a .limit to this sort of thing has gob’ to bo j

found both by employing bosses and the Labour bosses. It is well known that many men on the wharves do not strikes —neither on the job or off. ' They do not favour the “go-slow” policy. These men are in the unions, however, and the unions rule the workers — the federation rules the unions; and 'the Labour bosses frame up, rule, and boss the whole show. It is these last who speak for the lot. Through the recent “Transport Worker” the waterside leaders say they are not out for a “strike” and they give their reason why. They say that: “It took the 1913 to educate the workers in methods they . should adopt to obtain concessions without a strike and without starving.” Just so, what are the methods? Well, they are candid enough to tell us—thus —the reply to the force used by the employers in 1913 was, of course, the '“strike on the job” or the “go-slow,” .and then they charge the employers with intending to use; the “lock-out” as :i means of defeating this new method. (In an interview on the 13th instant, the 'employers say definitely: “There is no intention on the part of the employers to cause either a cessation of work or a lock-out,” and they added, “it is in the interests of the employers for all work to be carried on; it cannot possibly be . in their interests to lock-out.” That is . how the matter now stands. The one . .side says it does not mean to strike, and ,the other says it will not lock-out —but inothing is settled yat. 1 STRIKE AGAINST THE PUBLIC, j Those for whom the “Transport Worker” speaks may say they do not favour the “strike,” but to be equally candid with them let me say that they have chosen a much meaner method of ac- j tion. Men who, dissatisfied with the -. 'terms of employment, go on strike for j better terms are respected by the public j 7f they have anything like a decent •case, and even sympathised with when, being badly led, they plunge into a “silly strike” such as that of 1913. What feeling, however, can we have for the methods of those who, because they want to beat their employers, turn round and slap the whole of the public in the. face. The method of “striking on the job,” or “going slow” has not lowered the employers’ profits ,in the slightest. It has raised the price of •everything that passes over the wharf. What sneak thief invented this mean »nd cowardly method of fighting I do 'not know, but he certainly was not a man according to British standards. What is to be thought of the man in the ranks of labour who can uphold a. ■method so contemptible as this? At a time when the mass of the people are crying out above the high cost of living these industrial fanatics counsel ■the workers to adopt a method of fighting the employers, which never reaches •anyone but the consumer. Every hour of “striking on the job,” every process 'of “going slow” add always 'to the cost that every family man and housewife in the country has £o meet. It is the Inca nest kind of strike possible. It is a strike against the > community, a 'strike against the workers themselves. Just think what it means. It is .the adoption of a loafer’s policy which hits the consuming public all the time, and when it becomes widespread the public have no redress. It is like- fighting a man with his hands tied: you can •strike him in the most cowardly way. This is not trades’ unionism, for lit is .aiming, not at the improving of working conditions, but is to so harass’ the /employers that they may be driven out of the industry and the Labour bosse.9 be able to gain full control. In other words, it is a revolutionary movement to commandeer by force and confiscate public property by means of industrial direct action. The trades’ unionist who fights for the highest wage he can jget, but who does his best to maintain Hie industry from which he gets his living, is respeatod. The man who .agrees to work for as high a. rate as he Man get and gives half a day’s work for a. lull day’s pay has adopted the standard of an industrial pickpocket. Left alone the men on the wharves and the workmen anywhere else in New Zealand would never adopt this meanest of strike methods. “Striking on the job,” dispute on, or no dispute! There •has come into the Dominion a revolutionary and anarchistic virus from outside, and it is the element which is icausing the most serious industrial troubles that we have to meet.