THE RAILWAY STRIKE.

Hokitika Guardian, 1 May 1920, Page 1

THE RAILWAY STRIKE.

(To the Editor.) Dear Sir,—Having been a constant reader of your editorial columns for tho last two or three years, I was not surprised to find the attitude you take up witli regard to the Railway Dispute; but, ae a member of the Amalgamated Society of Railway Servants, might I be permitted to reply to the case you have made out against the men’s position.

You deplore the fact that the dispule lulls' arisen during the visit of the Prince of Wales. As a matter of fact the dispute has been developing for the last six months or more, and the Executive say they have been enabled to restrain the men, since as far back as 1917. The action that the men would take, in the event of their grievances not being settled, has been no secret, either from All- Massey’s Cabinet or from the general public. Everyone knew that if tile matter wore not satisfactorily adjusted, the men would be forced to strike in order to obtain _ wliat they considered their mead of justice. But even if the strike had been suddenly precipitated at the time of the Royal visit, why blame the men only? It takes two sides to make a quarrel; and, so, the Government are just as much responsible for the crisis oecuring now as the .men, if anything, more so. Even if sacrifices had to be made to postpone the trouble, the Government are better able to bear such sacrifices, than are the railwaymen, who are admittedly the most poorly paid workers in New Zealand.

Your attitude can ho understood thoroughly when you say “Those who believe in the maintenance of law and order will be disposed to support the Government from tlio outset.” One wonders, whether it is'the “Guardian” or the official organ of Reform in which such a statement occurs. But, Sir, in every ease of industrial trouble where the Massey Government have taken a hand, you have betrayed even the Liberal, section of the working class and have supported Mr Massey against organised labour.

'Such a choice is, of course, adinissable; but it is when you endeavour to holster up your position by (such false theories-as “the Labour World contrived to send the present party back into power” etc., that the fair-minded section of the public do not accept your statement of the case. If you study the last election results in comparison j with the previous results, you will notice that, they show a big turn over from Liberal to Reform: whereas the Labour vote lias increased about fourfold. It is then the “Liberal” world that is responsible for Mr Massey’s position, and you, Sir, in your attitude in this dispute, are helping the Massey party organise all the Liberal aspirations of a class-con scions working class. Of course, if the Government gives in to the Railwaymen, the public will have to pay, but, knowing tho circumstances under which the men work, are they not willing to pay? Ask any lair ~ mindoil member of tho community whether 12s a day is a fair thing ior a married man, in a responsible service like the railway. Generally speaking, the general public are always more willing to pay, than their “leaders” will admit, that is if they know the circumstances.

It is, however, not for me to find the real reason for this lack of grasp on the part of the so-called “leaders.” • The reason why Mr Massey is unwilling to shift off his autocratic pedestal and irraiit the' just claims of the ltailwaymcn is that such a “rise” would reflect itself on the outside and private industries. Now Mr Massey and his supporters (Reform and “Liberal”), are all more or less directly interested in outside concerns, that is, private bnsmesses; and it would not suit their interests if decent wages in the Railways (and other Government services too, lor that matter) were the means of forcing up wages ill their own particular private concerns. n , There is no moral as to the fallacy ot “nationalisation” to be taken from the.

case. # . It is not’‘‘nationalisation” that nns tailed, but it is “government by pn-vate-busincss-interests,” as reflected in all anti-Labour government that is detrimental to the principle of nationalisation, which principle under a really democratic system of Government, could be successfully applicable to all industries. . . One healthy sign about your article, Sir is that while roundly chastising the Loco men, you have not made one single comment about the wagos-ques-tion, which is the very hub of the situation: If you tacitly admit the righteousness of the men’s claims, why all your philosophy around the subject. The indecent pay, and the trying conditions are the bones of contention, and these should he made the subject of anv dispute as to the justice or otherwise of the Railwayman's grievances. Reverting to the subject of the Prince

of Wales, I think, Sir, you arc endeavoui'ino- to mislead the public in tns resncck The men on strike have offered to find a “crew”, for the Royal train, so that as far as the Prince is concerned, the men have gone out of their nay to avoid quibble. Let iustice be clone to the men, and the trouble will automatically adjust it- ' -self. , I am. etc., F. W. RTTDTON.