THE STRIKE CLAUSE

Industrial Unionist, Volume 1, Issue 8, 1 September 1913, Page 2

THE STRIKE CLAUSE

The Editor, Industrial Unionist, Auckland. Sir, — I notice an article in your last issue headed “ Parliament and its Relation to Economics, ” by T. Barker. This article is an attack on the United Federation of Labour, and contains a number of distortions of facts Avith all of which it is impossible to deal at one time, but I think it most necessary to draw attention to one glaring mis-statement. In the article it states: “ The I.W.W. is totally opposed to allowing an autocratic executive to make, delay or prevent strikes, and advocates the workers transacting their own business,” etc. Now, I have before me the constitution of the I.W.W. issued by the General Headquarters, Illineis, which states in Article 111, Section 5: ‘‘ In case the members of any subordinate organisation of the I.W.W. are involved in a strike regularly ordered by the Organisation or General Executive Board, or involved in a lockout, if in the opinion of the General Executive Board it becomes necessary to call out any other union, or unions of organisation, they shall have full power to do so .” The corresponding section in the constitution of the U.F.L. is as follows: In the event of a lock-out or author- / (1a -r* 1-t ti n a

ised strike the full strength of the United Federation of Labour shall be at the call of the National Executive in support of the section affected. ’ ’

The whole of the remaining sections of Article 31 of the I.W.W. constitution confer great power on the G.E.8., although in no case do they give the G.E.B. power to do things which could be conveniently and effectively dealt with by the membership as a whole, and I fail entirely to see wherein there is any essential difference on this matter between the constitution of the I.W.W. and that of the U.F.L.

As one of the delegates to the Unity Congress, I can safely say that the biggest fight we had was to give the National Executive power to act in cases of strikes, as the whole force of the opposition was brought to bear in order to get incorporated in the constitution the provision that the employers wish to force on us by statute law, viz.:—The referendum of the question of striking to a secret ballot of the membership, knowing as they do full well that the expense and delay in taking such a referendum must necessarily stultify any good which might result .from a strike by making such strike ineffective by reason of delay when success depends on immediate and united action. Does: Mr. .Barker mean to suggest. that after thv question of striking

has been referred in turn to the Local Department, the National Industrial Department, and finally the National Executive, and as a result of full consideration in each case the National Executive decides to use its power to call upon the whole strength of the Federation, that a referendum of the members should be taken to decide which unions should scab?

I would point out that the “ strike clause’ ’ as it stands in the constitution of the U.F.L. was, after the rejection by large majorities of several amendments on the lines recommended at the last conference of the Employers’ Federation, carried by 222 to 91. There are a number of other mis-state-ments in the article under reply, notably in the paragraph following that quoted, and the article is from beginning to end an attack on the U.F.L., which Federation is in any case a fair reflex of the economic education of the workers of New Zealand, and anyone who knows in what a .disorganised state the New Zea-

land workers were, say, six years ago, must see that it is an enormous advance, and, to my mind, on the right lines, and one must be content with steady progress, always provided it be in the right direction. The article under reply, although full of general abuse, does not criticise the actual constitution of the U.F.L., except in the case first quoted above, and then the criticism is based on a gross mis-statement of'facts.

Mr. Barker is, of course, entitled to his

opinions as to political action, but I would humbly submit to him that the abuse of individuals, innuendos, and the mis-statement of facts, should be left to the parsons who shine in the use of such weapons (as witness the article referred to in the column adjoining the one under reply, to which I was one of the first to object), and that the cause of industrial unionism would be better served by the members of the I.W.W. devoting their time to the propagation of the principles of industrial unionism.

If the members of the I.W.W. can find anything in the constitution of the U.F.L. which from their point of view needs criticism, by all means criticise it, but do so fairly and not by lengthy and nebulous attacks on nothing in particular. If, on the other hand, they can find nothing calling for vital criticism, let them work whole-heartedly in the common cause of industrial unionism, if not with the U.F.L. at least not against it.

I myself believe that industrial action is of vastly greater importance than political action, and it is because I so believe that I appeal to the I.W.W. to work with us if they genuinely desire class solidarity, because it is obvious that with the Police Offences Act, and the amendments to the Arbitration Acts, it is going to need all the educating and organising we can muster, and nothing but education,

foJlowed by organisation, can be of any

use to keep up from being even more tightly bound in the future than we have been in the past. At this juncture it is of vital importance that dissension should cease, and I appeal to my fellowworkers in the I.W.W. to give all their attention to pushing on the work of education—a work in which there is room for all—and to cease this petty bickering and pin-pricking riglit now, or you are playing right into the hands of the enemy by keeping the workers divided—the only condition in which they can be beaten. N. SHORTER. [Though the above has already appeared in another paper, we print it just as sent in. Criticism is welcomed, but less space would have sufficed for the points dealt with, and we hope all writers will take the hint, especially while the paper is a monthly. Fellow-worker Shorter deplores bickering and abuse, but bickers with, and abuses. Barker. Our correspondent’s point about the strike clause is not valid. A close comparison of the I.W.W. Constitution with that of the U.F.L. shows that the former only implies power for the Executive to extend (that is, help) a strike, while the latter has paragraphs—which Shorter does not quote—indicating power to restrict (that is, hinder) strikes —two different propositions.—Ed.]