ARBITRATION AND SCABBERY.

Maoriland Worker, Volume 2, Issue 2, 8 December 1911, Page 17

ARBITRATION AND SCABBERY.

Sir, —In the issue of "Tlie Maorilan-d Worker" of November 22 appears a letter by S. J. Pascoe, who, I particularly notice, describes himself as a ploughman/ and says he will try to prove that the Arbitration Court is mischievous and a- scab-machine. Well, this may or may not be a half-truth, but I do not accept this wonderful logic. Then he continues to say that when a union goes to the court for an award it binds itself to an agreement to continue working, though their fellow workers in an allied or perhaps the same industry go on strike for decent living conditions—then he asks is that not organised scabbery? I say No. If a union is working under an award the award only applies to the individual industry in the one particular district where that particular union operates. Then, again, he continues to quote the notorious farm laborers' case, and states that the court knew perfectly well that the men were not sufficiently organised to be able to force from the employers the conditions asked. No doubt this is' perfectly correct, but two swallows do not make a summer. Even to-day there are too many of a sycophantic class remaining in the rank and file of the country workers, whom I will not call scabs, but poor craven creatures who are so servile that they dare not call their souls their own when in the presence of their employers, as was amply proved in the strikes that eventuated in South Canterbury. Then, again, Mr. Pascoe reminds mc that industrialism was not thought ofexcept by a comparative lew, n:d be says that the reason the strike failed was organised scabbing. This I deny, and Mr Pascoe does not know what he is writing about when he makes use of this statement. Those cases which he describes of other unionists handling goods such as farm products did not apply in the cases referred to in my former note, as the strikes took place in the back country, several miles from either railway or shipping. Again, Mr. Pascoe urges upon mc and others whoever they may be who are wasting good time over the Arbitration Court, to study the principles of industrialism and work for an organisation that takes in all wage-earn-ers, so that an "uiiury to one is tho nn:i-

oern of all; then there would soon be an improvement in working conditions.' Just so. Now perhaps it may be refreshing to my critical friend, Mr. Pascoe, if I inform him that! I pride myself upon understanding somewhat of tho principles of industrialism as much as do my fellow-ploughnien, but like him, T am unable to force my opinions and principles down the neck of my fellow-workmen, and I am conscious of the fact that it is only by' education and eTolu-tion in the minds of the vast numbers of the country workers that the unions.can organise on industrial principles, but it will come in time. If Mr. Pascoe is a unionist, and I trust he is an active member and a worker, it will be some satisfaction to mc to know that I am not altogether alone in the work of or-, ganising tlie country workers, for I am conscious of the fact that where-;' ignorance is bliss, 'tis folly "to be wise, even at Highbank. ' For at the present time it is not theprinciple of arbitration that is altogether wrong.? but\the constitution of the court and the ; ad-' ministration of the Act by ; the courtand if the Act is to continue to. .be administered by the court.on. the'stern points of law only, as in the past, and not on equity, then it will sooner or later be resented in the near future even by the small unions. And much"''as?l, appreciate the principle of arbitration in the interests of the country worker at the present time, if there is to be no improvement in the near future in its administration, I will denounce it as being . useless and consign it to oblivion as a relic of the past. And it will go down to posterity, if it survives oblivicm, as a wasteful'expenditure of energy and a valueless piece of political machinery.—Yours, etc., Waimate. * J. SMITH.