AGREEMENTS AND ECONOMIC PRESSURE.

Maoriland Worker, Volume 3, Issue 60, 3 May 1912, Page 14

AGREEMENTS AND ECONOMIC PRESSURE.

Sir,—l have no wish to prolong the discussion re agreement-breaking, but Mr. Crowley's articlo is so likely to load to confusion and misunderstanding that I feel sonic reply should be made to it. Mr. Crowley makes tho assertion that agreements aro not forced on tho workers. I disagree entirely with him, and have no hesitation in stating that, whether in New Zealand or an_y part of tho civilised world whero capitalism holds sway, tliero is not ono industrial agreement between employer and worker that has not been forced on tho worker by economic pressure. In proof thereof it is only necessary to look below tho surface, and discover tho real reason why these agreements aro made. To begin with, under capitalism modern society has become divided into two great classes. On tho ono hand, wo: havo tho employing class, owning and controlling tlie land, the raw material, and the tools of production; on th© other, the working-class, owning (generally speaking) nothing but that commodity called labor-power. Is it not plain, then, that in order te livo tho workers must find a market for that labor-power? Denied free access to the means of production, they are foroedi

into tho humiliating position of having to make terms with tho employers in order to live, mark you; or, in other words, avoid starvation. It matters not how these terms aro mado, whether individually or collectively (as in the caso of unions) on the part of the workers, the alternative remains tho same. Tho dependent class must either enter into agreements with the owning class as to what terms their labor power will bo sold under, or remain in unemployment (and continuous unemployment means starvation, or something very nearly approaching it). AH this scorns clear enough surely, and it is tho very foundation of tho attitude taken by those who believe that "agreements aro not sacred, should not be binding, and, if necessary, may be broken by tho workers." I note again that Mr. Crowley states that agreements mado between equals should bo binding. In reply, I ask: How can equality bo said to exist between two classes situated as I have shown above? Neither can th© assertion bo correct that workers onter into agreements voluntarily. As regards aggressive action on the part of workers, tho question arises: What makes such action possibloP Is it not the recognition ,by employers that tho Federation reserves th© right to strike, and thorefore the right to break agreoments if necessary. Again, is Mr. Crowley so sure that none of thoso 400 miners driven from Rccfton lately have been reduced almost to the borders of starvation? At least, they havo been forced by that samo old economic pressure to enter into agreements with employers elsewhere. I fail to sco Mr. Crowley's reason for dragging the "no compromise" issuo into this discussion except it bo to substantiate tho charge _of dogmatism brought against Hickey. If so, I must disagree again, as I cannot accept the statement that "no compromise means dogmatism." I cannot recognise that because a man endeavors to follow a certain course, laid down on principles he believes to be right and just, ho cau bo classed as dogmatic. No, Mr. Crowley, I cannot. In conclusion, Mr. Editor, I must also deny that "our environment forces us tc organise on craft lines." I ask, Is it not rather that our environment is forcing us to organise on industrial lines, on tlie lines of tho Ono Big Union?— Yours, etc., -~-n Pokororo. E. R. GALE.