THE WRECKERS.

Hauraki Plains Gazette, Volume XXXIX, Issue 5269, 2 May 1928, Page 2

THE WRECKERS.

SHIPPING DISPUTE IN AUSTRALIA £60,000 IN' WAGES LOST. To most peoplq it will seem an extrft'orindary thing that a. dispute over the question of adding two cooks to a ship’s galley should have resulted in the ‘ complete- tie-up of a company’s whole fleet, and the loss to date of £6O/I'oo- in earnings. That, according t 0 a cabled report from Sydney, is the position in which thee Huddart Parker .Company finds; itself to-day, and with ,no immediate prospect of settlement (states the “Dominion”). The facts are interesting, and sugl gostive. The passenger capacity of the Ulimarda, originally 423, has been reduced .under the Commonwealth Navigation Act to 379, but the crew has been increased from 120 -to. 130. The cooks have now demanded! two extra hands in the galley, and' the Owners have refused; The secretary of the union states that hl's body, is not taking any official part in the dispute, but is merely, watching the case in the interqstisi of the men. Not a very convincing statement this, recalling a. .similar pretence indulged in by the executive of a certain union in a strike, which occuiyed in this country some years ago. One principle of trade unionism, without which it could not survivee, is responsible representative negotiation. Without this it would be almost impost slblc to reach agreements in which the parties could have confidence. Such agreements bind, or should bind, either side to discipline its. individua’l members to secure observance of awards or agreements. The union cannot escape responsibility when individual members cease work by way of a boycott, as has happened in the case, of the Huddart Parker deadlock.

Very naturally the shipowners complain that they have no redress, and, in the depth of the'r. perplexity, have touched a fundantental'proposition. in t'he problem of industrial re-< lationships :—

“Unless we, and the gipat body of employees, can find- some commonsense way of determining minor troubles,” they say, “it is absolutely certain that the extremists w'll r.uin the shipping industry. Consequently, tiie present*state of affairs concerns the welfare of the Commonwealth anu its people.” This fundamental proposition is tliait industry is a community affair, not a more matter of disputes between employers on the one s’dc and workers on the other. Thq ruin of an important industry might quite conceivably mean serious embarrassment to the public. From the Australian extremist’s point of v’ew neither the interests of a particular industry nor of the community seem to matter one jot. Organised Labour in Australia will have nothing to du with the Federal Government’s Industrial Peac© Conference, a meeting of parties similar to that which in this country has just concluded its preliminary work under harmonious conditions. To add furtihe.- to the depressing outlook for industrial relationships in Australia, a citizen of that strike-infested country has just been elected to the executive of the Red Internationale at Moscow. What prospect is there, in such an atmosphere, for that “common-sense way of determining minor troubles,” for Which the Austial'ian shipowners so earnestly plead ? Tl'.eije is none, unless and until organised Labour definitely relinquis'hes its alien attitude of. class'-conscious-I’tess' and ident'fies itself in; a spirit of co-operation with the general welfare of tiie community. That it has bach, and i'll the future may still have, legitimate demands upon industry ■most people are prepared to admit. But i r n all cases public opinion, which is the ultimate judge, will insist that it should justify these. To proceed otherwies, in defiance of the general interest, is to assume tiie. role of industrial and social wreckers.