"NO COMPROMISE," AND "AWAY WITH ARBITRATION."

Maoriland Worker, Volume 2, Issue 14, 9 June 1911, Page 12

"NO COMPROMISE," AND "AWAY WITH ARBITRATION."

(To the Editor.)

Sir, —Like Mr. Townsend, I, too, have been through various strikes in Australia, and havo seen tho utter confusion among the men who were reputed to be "organised," and have experienced tho barrenness of the "'Victories" that were supposed to .be won. We do not need to go to Australia for onr lessons. The rate for shearing in New Zealand in the seventies and eighties was 20s per hundred. Shearers' Unions wore formed, and led a somewhat chequered existence. Gradually the unions increased in membership, the flocks of sheep increased in size, the sheepowners became more wealthy, and (.note this.) the price of shearing dwindled down and down until in Otago as low as 12s 6d per hundred was paid in isolated cases and from 13s to 15s was paid in various parts of N.Z.

Then came the Arbitration Act. Tlie following table shows the results gained by the shearers from the time ot their first award.

1902 : Machines, 15s 6d ; blades, 16s 8d 1908: Machines, 16s 8d ; blades, 18s

1911 : Machines, 19s 6d ; blades, 20s Thus, by means of awards the shearing rate was raised in nine years from los 6d to 19s 6d—an increase ot more than 25 per cent., and it must always be borne in mind that tlie rates named in the awards are only ••minimum" rates.

The time may come when the shearers can afford to do without the Court, but in our present stage of industrial organisation it is perfectly clear shearers can do far better with the Court than without it. The same remark applies to all pastoral and agricultural workers. The Arbitration Court serves as an incentive to organise, and I venture to say that once given an award. the Farm Laborers' Union would be tho strongest organisation in New Zealand.

The Court knows this, the Farmers' Union knows it, and the Employers' Association also knows it.

When these thrc-p bodies aro doing their utmost to prevent the country workers getting an award, it stands to reason that the ■workers themselves have a good deal to gain and nothing to lose by obtaining such an award. So much for the cry of ' 'Away with Arbitration !"

With regard to the strike at the ballot box 1 absolutely agree with Mr. Townsend. Nobody has ever been able to show mc what the workers can gain by means of the "strike" and "industrial unionism" that they cannot already gain by a strike at the ballot box.

The workers have political power now, but they can't or won't—or at any rate don't—use it in the proper manner. The Federation of Labor_ says thi3 is because the workers are not industrially organised, and that, therefore, the Federation as an organisation cannot enter the political arena. But the official organ of the Federation wants to do ''away with Arbitration" even in the absence of this same industrial organisation!

As to Mr. Hickey's artice "No Compromise," I regarded this as an official expression of policy, seeing that Mr. Hickey is a prominent member of the present executive of the N.Z. Federation of Labor. Your not© on page 9 of WoRKEit May 19th, says that is no so, but that tho attitude of the Federation has yet to be determined.

But this question is not a new question ; it is an old question of the solidarity of Labor, the question of united we stand, divided wo fall, and surely it is time the Federation did determine its attitude on this matter.

Finally, I shall be glad to have you inform mc: (1) In what way the workers can gain social and other benefits by industrial organisation which aro not already available to them now by means of a strike at the ballot box ? (2) In what way can the farm laborers, domestic servants, etc., improve their conditions more rapidly and more efficaciously than by means of the Arbitration Act? (3) What attitude does The Maorii-and Worker propose to take up with regard to the forthcoming elections, and what pledge (if any) does it expect from any candidate whom it supports ?

M. LARACY, Gen. Sec. N.Z. Shearers' Assn