British Unionists and Arbitration.

Maoriland Worker, Volume 2, Issue 2, 8 December 1911, Page 10

British Unionists and Arbitration.

The mischiovoushess of Arbitration is rapidly being recognised in New j Zealand by those chiefly concerned — j the toilers who know where their interests lie. Arbitration as an industrial weapon is being discarded by the more advanced unions, who see in Industrial Unionism a sounder and surer means of bettering their conditions. While Arbitration in New Zealand is under a cloud, its star is in the ascendant at Home. At the present moment in Great Britain, which is yet in the grip of a decadent feudal system and a soulless, sordid capitalism, a cry is raised against the strike as an industrial weapon. . Arbitration is loudly demanded as a means- of settling trade disputes. Every writer on Labor matters outside those who advocate Socialism pure and simple sees in Arbitration the cure for an evil that will exist while capitalism lives and flourishes. When that very cockney Labor man, Mr. Will Crooks, visited New Zealand, he was made much of by the pious Labor leaders of the Dominion who believe in Arbitration. Mr. Will Crooks did not impress us as a strong man by any means. He belongs to the pious, very temperate school of social reformer, who however estimable as individuals, have very little fight in'them. Evidently Will Crooks learned much from the little Labor people of New Zealand, for he became enamoured of the blessed principle of Arbitration. He introduced a Bill into the House of Commons—the Labor Disputes Bill— which has been made the subject of a manifesto by the General Federation of Trade Unions. We propose to quote a few paragraphs from this manifesto by way of showing how the trade unionists of the Old Country regard the attempt of Mr. Will Crooks to initiate the discredited Labor legislation of New Zealand. "The recent strikes offer some lessons which trade unionists may desire to consider, and they- bring to light some dangers which trade unionists wll do well to guard against. These strikes have shown beyond doubt that the quickest method of securing the consideration of evil conditions and low wages is by industrial action. They have demonstrated the paramount need for, and the value of, organisation on trade union lines, and they J

have emphasised the stupidity of those employers who oppose the legitimate development of the trade union movement. "That there is real danger of an attempt being made to limit the right of the workman to strike is obvious to all Who have noticed recent Press opinions and Parliamentary utterances or wbo have any knowledge of the confidential letter issued to Chief Constables by the Home Secretary. Every trade unionist, too, will deplore the introduction of the Labor Disputes Bill for which Mr. Will Crooks, M.P., has made himself responsible. This Bill was evidently introduced in a moment of panic, without consultation with the trade unions, and without its sponsors having given themselves time to consider its effects upon tlie movement to which they belong. "It is charitable to believe that tbe Bill was backed on the assumption that in the Law there was perfect equality for all men and all causes. Such equality does not exist; even where the laws have been drafted with this end in view the aim of the draftsman has been defeated by acts of the .administrator. The history of Britain supplies a whole series of tragic instances of savage sentences passed upon innocent workmen engaged in industrial struggles, and of exaggerated and ridiculous damages against trade unions. It is not too much to say that the Bill introduced by Mr. Will Crooks, M.P., is a bad one from end to end; nothing worse could have emanated from the most bitter enemies of trade unionism; and every trad-*> uiiionist ought to enter his strong protest against the measure, and do everything possible to secure' its immediate withdrawal." The effects of the Bill are summarised as follows:— 1. Threatened by a strike, the employers may apply to the Board of Trade, who will grant a Conciliation Board. 2. If the workers do not send representatives to that Conciliation. Board, they will be "represented" by men selected by &he Board of Trade. 3. As no one " having a pecuniary interest" iai the dispute may sit on the Conciliation Board, no worker concerned in the dispute is eligible. And doubtless it would be decided that .a paid trade union official had a ' 'pecuniary interest.' ' Who, then, could represent the men ?. 4. A board formed against the wishes of the workers, and composed of men selected by the employers and the Board of Trade would act in the absence of any real representative Of the workers. 5. It would be illegal to strike .until the Board has "settled" the dispute. That means it would be illegal to strike at all. Because: (a) Men must not strike until the Board has sat and decided the dispute. (b) Thirty days' no- cc of intention to strike must b given, and in that time the Board could be formed. (c) Tlie Board would have power to sit for six months. (d) After the Board had settled the dispute the workers must accept the decision, or must begin all over again by giving another thirty days' notice. Therefore the Bill robs the workers of tlie power to strike.

The ••Clarion-' riglrfcry describes tne Bill as "slavery by Act of Parliament.", Yet New Zealand, where uh© workers sold their birthright for a mess of arbitration pottage, is Jield up by the little Laborites hero and at Homo as the sociological laboratory of the world, which should be looked to by the nations for th© best methods of settling trad© disputes 1 Rob a man of the right to strike, and you take his manhood' from him. The Arbitration Court in New Zealand.has robbed the worker of his manhood. If it has not also robbed him of his reason, he will; cease to genuflect before a class-con- i scious judge, who would never dream of asking for an Arbitration Court to fix his salary. Socialists are often accused of interfering with the liberty of the subject, but there could hardly be a worse case of robbing & man of an inherent natural right than in this flagrant attempt to deprive the worker of his natural right to cease work as a means to compel his employers and oppressors to lighten his burdens. It is a significant fact that while the workers of New Zealand are crying "Away with Arbitration!" the masters of Great Britain (and Mr. Will Crooks) are crying out for it.