Agreements and Industrial Organisation.

Maoriland Worker, Volume 3, Issue 53, 15 March 1912, Page 4

Agreements and Industrial Organisation.

The Roof of the Matter.

By P. H. HJCKEY

The criti.-iftin which 1 haw called forth iliroiigli 'I.cm. «<■■ i'orKcl' , ' has lucidly demonstrated (mi' fact: How hopelessly emheddcd in the miro oi sectionalism many oi our active Federnvfoii members an l . Right throughout the majority of t-be articles written by way ot criticism there is ;iii inability t/> distinguish between tin , industrial and i;raft union viewpoint. J iiis is in itself a disappointing discovery, for whilst 1 know only too well tiiat tho whole oi our membership had not grasped the fundamental ba-sis of industrialism, 1 iit least imagined tluii- men like Aliirslwll and Hooker had done so.

If those two good iVHous had remembered that I am an Industrialist above all else, they wonl<l have remembered that an Industrialist never advocates craft or sectional action, except in exceptional cases. Wholes breaking ot agreements by craft unions savors so very greatly 'of s> ci.ionalism run mad that it surprises mc how any professed student of the industrial position vwiW have made such an egregious blunder. It is sad. but true. thru, tho Kiajonty oi our numbers are still afflicted, with the craft union conscience. The tedious work of education upon the truths ot Industrial Unionism is as necessary today as of yore. Now, what is our position? We claim to be a revolutionary organisation. Consequently, we must be to craft division and sectionalism. This precludes craft or sectional action. Once this position is conceded, tho whole oi the criticism levelled against mc, in so far as I am accused of advocating the smashing of agreements by individual unions, falls to the ground.

I want now to repeat, my assertion made-on February 9—that the workers (industrial, not craft) are justified in breaking their that agreements wrung from the workers through ecnnoinie necessity aro not sawed, and should not lie regarded as such. John Stuart Mill says: "The classes which tho present system of society makes subordinate have little reason to put faith in any of the maxims which tho saiue system of society may have established as a principle." My the sa.mo token, the employers insist upon tho observance of agreements by tho workers nud break them with impunity themselves if it pays them to do so. They always do the tiling which pays, agreements or no agreements. The workers will have to learn to do likewise.

Thoro is not a body of working-men in the uiuverr.o, possessing an atom of course, who would blindly acquiesce in any law passed by a party of repression, if that law was an oppressive law. They would break it the moment an opportunity occurred, and would bo applauded for tho act. The Eamc line of argument should be applied to the industrial laws (agreements), which are forced through industrial oppression. To obtain just laws, wo aro told, it is often a wise policy to break the existing ones. I want to ?«o my class apply tho same principle to their agreements.

With the implacable* foes of the working-class possessing economic power, it very naturally follows tbnt in all dealings which tho wealth-pro-ducers may have with tho wealth-takers thoy aro virtually at tho merry of those who own tho toots of wealth production. Beforo being allowed aiwss to those machines which th.'ir labor has created, they are compelled, just as surely a* if a bayonet wore at their breast, \p sign an agreement stating how litileof that which thoy them solves produce will be taken by them. Tho alternative to tho signing of tho agreement is starvation. Don't make any mistake about that! Is that a square deal? Ts that a sacred contract? l>t mc repeat—only a fool would regard it as such ; an Industrialist, never! William E. Trautmann very clearly states the Industrialist's position as follows: "The.lndustrial Unionist, however, holds that there can bo no agreement with the employers of labor which tho workers have to consider sacred and inviolable. "The worker, if ho agrees to the terms of a contract insisted upon, by an employer as condition of employment, does so under duress; he is neither legally nor morally bound to respect such an agreement as a sacred pact; moreover, contracts are used, as shown in this treatise,_ as instruments to keep tike workers divided ; the benefit of the contract is always vn thoi ride of the employer. '■Itwhjstrifll Unionists will therefore sign any pWlgo, and renounce even their organisation if .necessary, at times when ttoy «to not w<ll prepared to £iv* T»aiU* t wr when market conditions at* lew* Ib-at they wiil do just the re~ ve-m? di what they had to agree to andef <kws9 when oeoasion arises to gain fl<iva.ntapeß for tho workers.'| ! Iγ thi« Jfitter clans wtrnggl© in which we sAf when the. money power. ; ihf j-H<jfkiAr,v, tho government, and eft.¥itvi<is iW: pulpit aro on the side of , 'JJh*'. *ji*Tfe!if-*sflss. it would lie folly for mmnbtkrf of the working-class to altew ui«nis?lv<* to be, t>y an

eUiieal code which is treated with cold eoi.LMiipt b\ ils founders. 'I n<: eilnos ill' the, capitalist-class caiinui rightly bu the ethics of tHe wage-slave.

Kighfc hero is the line of cleavage between the revolutionist 'Uu\ the. submissive eroaturo oi its masters. On. which aide of tho line stand \ou, fellow Federudonistsr . Will .you ho hobbled, by an ethical code established by a class which exists solely by the exploitation of the workers, or will you stand by the. motto of your organisation, "The world's wealth for the world's workers ?" Tho answer is obvious.

Like the wage-slaves of to-day, the chatt<? 1 slaves of old wore told that they niusL rigidly adhere to the ethical system which countenanced slavery. Hirelings of the slave-owners justified slavery. And among flic slaves themselves there were many who condemned their fellows if they dared question t-bo right of their owners to the bodies of the slaves. They adhered to the existing ethical system. Let mc say that, in the obtaining of "tho world's wealth for the world's workers," agreements not a few will be broken. Will this shock some of my friends or prevent them reaching out their hands to pluck tili'at which la rightly theirs? The, real and tangible danger with which we in New Zealand are confronted is that of the units comprising our organisation regard ins; themselves— beennso of their craft union training---as being irrevocably wedded 1o an agreement, conic veal. come voe. With the many points rsiisid by various writers. 1 do ii<ii intend to deal at this time. What. lam vastly concerned about is the grave dan^e ,, of the Industrial Unionist spirit, which has more or less animated the Federation in the past, being submerged or lost sight, of and sectionalism becoming rampant. Tlie argument has been and is used by workers in New Zealand that the natural corollary to an agreement is blind observance to it at all costs. I want to see the Federation in a position, no matter how many agreements may be in existence, to bring into practical effect, if need be, its stirring slogan, "An injury to one is the concern of nil." When H pays to break agreements, I repeat, those agreement* will have to be broken. I am intelligent enough to know that they would only be broken for some vital principle involved. But let us give our comrades clearly to understand that, if the call is made for concerted action, agreements should not bo used to stuff cowardly ears to deaden that call. Already through the capitalist press 1 have been accused of "misloading the workers," "anarchy," and such-like epithets: even a section of my fellowworkers have followed the lead of their masters in this respect. When, as one if the very first to do so, I raised my voice against the compulsory arbitration system in New Zealand, I knew that those members of my class who called mo impossible, and even questioned my sanity, would soon realise who was right. To-day the majority of Now Zealand's organised workers are with mc in my opposition to tjiat system. And the same will apply to agreements. Before long the workers will realise they will have to insist upon the right to "toss their agreements to hell" if in the tossing working-class betterment is a-sured.

And all the tinio pliant tools of capitalism, with tho hearts of jackals m<l Tvil.li minds filled with the venom of the sorppnt, will endeavor to pump their poisonous verbal offal into the minds of tbe toilers that their ranks may be split in twain by the schism if .sectionalism.

f?rtno woTikers, sad in ear. will lieed tlie poisonwl vaporincs of ilioiv masters' pimps, and atlaok lnoinbcrs of tlioir own class. There is mnre than onfl Judas who would soil bis <>hm, not at the p_iire of "tliirty piecos of .silver," but, at the price of an aprorinoitt. Rui all tbo timo tb<> issuo is before in, and lias to b<» fared. Let us face it now like men.