TRADE UNION LEGISLATION

Hokitika Guardian, 23 April 1927, Page 1

TRADE UNION LEGISLATION

]>y The Right Hon. .1. It. dynes, ALP. (The ljondon Weekly) Ever since the present Government came into power a persistent itch to use its power to the disadvantage of trade unions.has been evident I do not accuse Air Ihildwin of being a victim of that itch, because, firstly, | do not think he, personally, has any active desire to abuse power, and. secondly, J believe he is too wily a strategist for till his bland simplicity of manner, to do anything which so manifest would not pay as a policy. lie might be led or jockeyed into an abuse of power, because no Prime .Minister can he individually .and all the time the absolute arbiter of Cabinet policy; and the present ( sjhmet. contains several powerful influences ol a less scrupulous and judicious nature than Ids. From time to time the itch has seemed to pass away, but it recurs with renewed strength on each sign of encouragement. Encouragement proreeds front the circumstances of the dav.

It will be remembered that shortly after the Hovernment. took office, the threat loomed large that the voluntary levy of trade unionists tor 'lie i iirt Iterance of political activities was to lie obstructed by the tnrrihe alteration ol administrative method. and that advantage was to he taken ot human inertia and encouragement, given to back-sliders. \\ hat results would have been achieved is largely a matter of hypothesis, and I believe they wot Id have been much less than was hoped hv the reactionary lathers of the scheme, but the unchivalrous and mean character of the idea, rai- .l such a storm of protest that the nmtter was quickly allowed to die out. io the accompaniment, of a general sense of relief that a discreditable national episode had been averted. The General Strike was an advent regarded by a great body of the publie. including trade unionists, as a strange blend of quixotic heroism and muddled thinking, constituting an abuse of power by tlit* trade unions themselves. I tun not saying that this is a just or correct impression, tut it is fairly widespread, and has heel fostered by an assiduous press. It has created another occasion tor . lie t ea.titularies to gird on their 'ighling-gc ar and come out nine more against Hi" trade unions with the legislative uiigl.t of the crushing Conservative power m the House of Commons. This time their purpose is to attack on a wt.h r front than that presented ty the political levy.

Under the guise of legislation to prevent an abuse of power by the t rude unions-—nonjeet urat, exaggerated or imaginary as such abuse might Is l

- they deliberately seek to create definitions of “illegal” disputes, punishable by law. and give a width ot power m definition to any reactionary Government which could place trade unions in their hand and render them practically powerless.

Trade an huts have won Hie recognition of their right to withhold labour when all the means of hacking their ease by negotiation and discussion are unavailing. Trade unions Jo not seek strikes; their continued policy tuts been to avoid resort to them. Ibis has earned them little gratitude, ard it lias become a i ustom to call every lock-out a strike. But there are times when the conciliatory and fair-minded trade union leaders can find no '.lter native, short of surrender to mi t ceptalile terms, to advising a withdrawal of labour, anil that right is recognised amt will not be abandoned. Wiith the winning of that recognition lias gone the recognition ill law of auxiliary rights to reduce by means ot peaceful picketing and methods ol persuasion to prevent strike-breaking by either deliberate "blacklegs or wa\erers.

11l countries such as the l uiteil States, whore strikes have often been broken, to the noconipnnintent of violence am! bloodshed. by groups of gunmen and masst'd blacklegs, the absence of such auxiliary lipids has resulted in a bitterness and brutality which our worst episodes in Kurland can hardly parallel. 'l’ho.se lights have not been seized under the advantage ol welldisposed governments readily assenting to any whim of their supporters: they have been conceded over long years of careful investigation and legislative elfort .

There can hi’ only two ways of looking at the proposed Government legislation—either the Government have honostfy in mind the desire to saleguard the public, and prevent industrial disputes from endangering its safety ; or they wish to seek opportunity actually to cripple trade unions. Ii their motives are as sound and e'eau as they ought to be. in consideration of their responsibility to the nation unaffected by partisan interests. 1 assort that under the existing law they have ample powers, anil any situation, mixing however suddenly, can he handled and dealt with drastically. So iar as the public safety is concerned, these powers are enough for any Governmnet.

If legislation is to declare strikes

“illegal'’ and to whom is a definition id' illegality to he entrusted ?—-with penal causes to he enforced, it is clear tiiat the purpose ol such legislation is actively hostile to trade unions, and that its intention is to cripple trade unionism by either undermining the recognised right to withhold labour out of fear for llm penalties resulting, or by the imposition ol penalties, lines, imprisonments, sequestration of funds, compulsory winding-up, or suchlike terrors, to reduce them to impotence. If that is the intention, the sooner it is unmasked the hotter. I'.veii the present Conservative party will not stand behind .stub a policy, and the Labour party could ask nothing better than go to the country on such an issue. If make-believe legislation falling short of that intention is contemplated. as a party sop to the Scarborough Conservative conference, we can only look with contempt on a Government which can waste time on window-dressings and mummeries whilst the urgent business ot the nation awaits serious attention. Xo change in the law is necessary to deal with intimidation. Intimidation is now illegal. Many workmen are still in prison for breach of such a law. although many employers guilty of acts of intimidation cannot be punished for their wrong-doing. If the law permits workmen to strike, or to induce others by picket or pressure to help in making a strike successful, employers can by lock-out. victimisation. boycott and by prohibiting employment of men, punish workmen in innumerable ways, and more than balance any power which workmen now have to make a strike succesful. t iolence, or the suggestion of it, is now

an offence against the law. On the whole, the conduct of workmen in trade disputes has been exemplary and peaceful, and greater peace in industry is not likely to come from any act of Parliamentary aggression which would further tilt the scale in the employer’s favour. A general strike cannot be checked by law or by threatening workmen with penalties. Strikers can be checked bv removing industrial abuses, and by the practice of equitable dealing. Wo want patience instead of panic, and should avoid using a momentary majority in Parliament in a manner which would further undermine the efforts of those who are working tor industrial peace. Anti-trade union law would lie fatal to every effort now being made to cultivate the spirit ol agreement and bargain. 'ITto most grotesque ot all the demands now being made is that the Opposition in Parliament should gi\o .1 guarantee against a future general strike. Neither the Labour party m the House, nor the political organisation outside has responsibility for "hat a Trade Union Executive or Conterenre may do, and those who picss this demand upon working-class representatives would never think to demand of any employers' asociatinn a guarantee against a future lock-out in anv one of our national trades.