Unions Losing Steel

Sun (Auckland), Volume I, Issue 180, 20 October 1927, Page 10

Unions Losing Steel

LABOUR LEADER’S VIEW

Come Out of the Glasshouse

ARBITRATION has taken the steel out of trades unionist! in this Dominion and in the opinion of Mr. T. Blood worth the hope of revitalising the movement lies in tin repeal of the Act. As a Labour leader he would not be sorry if it were withdrawn so that unionism would have ti grow strong’ in the exhilaration of struggle. “Come away from the glasshouse 1 ’ he advises.

"T HAVE no doubt that the Indus- -*■ trial Conciliation and Arbitration Act did a lot of good in the earlier years of its existence, but I do not think it does much good to-day, and I would not be sorry if it were repealed,” stated Mr. Bloodworth. That the passing of the arbitration system would mean the end of the preference clause and a consequent loss of members to unions did not perturb Mr. Bloodworth unduly. There was in the repeal of the Industrial,

Conciliation and Arbitration Act the great possibility of the revivifying of industrial unionism. “I think,” said Mr. Bloodworth, “that we have to choose between two very different things, on the one hand unionism kept alive, though practically inactive, through the Arbitration Act, and on the other hand, trade unionism alive and active, a critical, constructive, educative force in the community, knowing what it wants, active

because its members believed in it and could take part in its deliberations ; and activities. | “I think there is a great future for trade unionism if it should come away ! from the glasshouse atmosphere ; of the Arbitration Act in which it has lived for the last few years. I also think there is the greatest need for trade unionism not only for the sake of the workers, but for the country generally. We have looked to other institutions for guidance and education for constructive criticism and for progressive ideas. For the most part we have been disappointed. I believe that more life in unionism would mean I more life in other institutions and a general waking up all round. “As far as reforming the Act to | meet present-day needs is concerned, 1 j still hold, in the main, the opinion I formed nine years ago. In 191 S the Federation of Labour, of which I was president, issued a report on the position of organised labour with regard to the Act and a proposed alternative method for the guidance of industry in New Zealand. That report stated, ‘with regard to suggestions for an amendment to the Arbitration Act and its administration we have none to offer, because we believe that the system, based as it is ultimately on compulsion, and tending as it does to perpetuate the wages system, and to rob both employers and employed of liberty of action and of freedom to organise as each thinks best, to be wrong in principle. And what is wrong in principle cannot, in our opinion, be so amended as to be ultimately beneficial in practice.* j “That was written in 191 S, and i though a good deal of water has flowed under the bridges since then it still expresses in the main my views respecting the Industrial Conciliation and Arbitration Act. “I do not know what would take its place, but the Federation of Labour at the time had a system of industrial councils and we proposed a national industrial conference to discuss the general position. The Employers’ Association, however, at that time refused to meet us and though several suggestions have since been made it has never yet been held. But I believe that if it were held then from such a gathering would come the answer to the question, ‘What would take the place of the arbitration system?”